Welfare.

[Crude]

You don't sound snarky. You sound un-educated.

I find it interesting how these things always degenerate into some one being called stupid.

page2 is mine

 

[byteware]

M/M did not start at 0. The 1st year of M/M it was ~5%. Your chart shows that. The yearly increase of M/M is less then other HC. Both your chart and mine shows it.

No it doesn't. It shows that the total Health Care costs were 5% when M/M started.

Seriously, the graph is at 5%. Both M/M @ 5% and Health Care @ 5% cannot equal 5%. They would be 10%, which they are not... on the graph... which you cannot read.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y.

Exactly what you did. I stated an arguement and conclusion. You stated the opposite conclusion. To prove your conclusion you stated a completely unrelated arguement ( which was also wrong ) and completely ignored the original argument.

You don't sound snarky. You sound un-educated.

And yet... I don't seem to be the one who's adding 5% + 5% = 5%.

Since you like to quote Wikipedia.

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4] An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA
​

In addition. You seem confused what a sub prime loan is. The CRA deals with income and racial discrimination in leading.

You act like the bad loans were only to poor blacks.

In reality sub-prime loans are riskly loans to people who's financial history does not support the loan.

So it was not only loans to low-income buyers but also the over extension of credit to the middle class buyers.

The idea that Clinton was responsible for the 2003-2007 sub-prime loan issues is laughable.

The regulation required that they MAKE loans in those areas in order to be in compliance. It doesn't matter that the law requires them to only make good loans.

They had the choice to either make the loans or get his with very steep fines. What other choice do you think that they had?

Here is a chart of the number of sub-prime loans:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_fraud.svg/725px-Mortgage_loan_fraud.svg.png

No it's not. It's a chart to mortgage loan fraud.

You do realize that, even if you cannot, others on this forum can READ...

Wrong. Ten Facts about Claiming the Child Tax Credit

See 10. Your income has to qualify.

Doesn't matter for the point however. A specific group gets a income tax benefit that the general population does not. The benefit is unrelated to the actual work that produced the income that was taxed.

That's welfare.

I see where you misunderstand...

The "Additional Child Tax Credit" is not the "Child Tax Credit".

If you don't make enough to get the "Child Tax Credit", you may be eligible for the "Additional Child Tax Credit", which is another beast altogether.

I see where the misunderstanding comes from... however, you should stop reading just to find information to prove your point, and start reading in order to educate yourself.

That's the utopia hope of how businesses will spend their profits.

But...

Businesses have been making more profit in the last decade but buying less. ( the business portion of the GDP has been declining)

That's EXACTLY how businesses work. Sure, they might not buy as much as YOU want them to, but that's not going to change simply because you want it to, and raising taxes on them will only push them to buying LESS.

It not as simplistic as you claim. If taxes go down and revenues lift slightly they are more likely to pay dividends and executive more.

There are no numbers to prove your contention of what businesses do with increased revenue but plenty to prove mine.

I'm glad you said that... I would love for you to provide some proof that raising taxes on rich doesn't decrease business spending, and that lowering taxes on the rich doesn't increase business spending.

In any case. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that higher taxes has absolutely no effect on the spending habits of the upper 5% of the income earners.

Have you lost your ever loving mind? Seriously

Gates is still going to buy that LearJet if he wants/needs to.

All you have to do is compare the economies of the last 2 presidents.

Clinton raised taxes and cut spending. GDP grew and deficits turned into surpluses

Bush cuts taxes and raises spending. GPD droped and had historic deficits.

Clinton had 5 years of 4%+ GDP growth and none under 2%

Bush had 2 over 3%, 4 under 1% and a 0% year.

Clinton started with a 269 Billion deficit and ended with 3 surpluses.

Bush started with a 128 Billion surpluse and ended with over a trillion deficit.

The numbers don't lie. Spin them all you want. Here are the raw numbers from the sources:

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2009

I absolutely hate having to give you information that you should already know.

The economy was roaring along during the Clinton years. By the end of the Clinton Administration the economy was diving into recession.

Bush brought that economy out of recession WITH the tax cuts.

Your charts clearly show this.

The other option is that the day Bush took office, taxes were cut, and spending skyrocketed, and the economy started to tank? The spending and tax cuts didn't change until late in his first year in office.

 

[byteware]

AndyLL.

Honestly, you can't read a graph (5% + 5% cannot equal 5%, no matter how much it suits your argument). You can't understand the difference between two different tax credits, and you have the gall to call others uneducated.

There is only so much I can point out your idiocy before I actually get mean about it...

So, I'm going to bow out of this argument. It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is incapable of reading that graph.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Taxes on rich
Or
Taxes on poor

In a reccession taxing the rich extra is a helluva lot better for the economy than taxing the poor

 

[byteware]

Taxes on rich
Or
Taxes on poor

In a reccession taxing the rich extra is a helluva lot better for the economy than taxing the poor

You are joking right? The poor don't pay taxes. The bottom 50% of this country only pay 2.89% of the income taxes paid in this country.

The top 1% pays 40.42%

The next 4% pays 20.21%

The next 5% pays 10.59%


All in all, the top 10% of the income bracket pays 71.22% of the income taxes paid in this country. The poor are just living off their forced charity.

 

[ElasticNinja]

You are joking right? The poor don't pay taxes. The bottom 50% of this country only pay 2.89% of the income taxes paid in this country.

The top 1% pays 40.42%

The next 4% pays 20.21%

The next 5% pays 10.59%


All in all, the top 10% of the income bracket pays 71.22% of the income taxes paid in this country. The poor are just living off their forced charity.

Wow I saw other things showing way less, but I'll trust you

Source would be appriciated still though


How do you mean "forced charity"?

 

[Baggy]

"Where a great proportion of the people are suffered to languish in helpless misery, that country must be ill policed, and wretchedly governed: a decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization. - Samuel Johnson"

 

[byteware]

Wow I saw other things showing way less, but I'll trust you

Source would be appriciated still though

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

How do you mean "forced charity"?

Charity, is when you give money to those in need.

Forced charity, is when money is taken from you against your will, and given to those that someone else deems in need.

"Where a great proportion of the people are suffered to languish in helpless misery, that country must be ill policed, and wretchedly governed: a decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization. - Samuel Johnson"

"There is no greater tyranny than to force a man to pay for something he does not want" - Heinlein

 

[savoxis]

Here are my 2 cents:

Our welfare system is not perfect right now I will be the first to admit it needs to be reworked. But welfare is a necessity for modern society and as a country we need to be more socialist.

And yes welfare, free healthcare, social security. All these things you will find in a socialist society. Right now our country has many socialist policies but we seem to be almost afraid of socialism often relating it to communism, it is almost a bad word.

We need MORE welfare, look at every other leading country in the world, with they're free healthcare, low unemployment rates, mandatory 2 month vacations. Switzerland for instance has free healthcare, free high speed internet, mandatory 2 months paid vacation, and much more. The downside, the taxes are more, 5% more.

We think we are getting away with paying less in taxes by sacrificing but as it stands we pay more than most countries that have it all together, and almost as much as the countries notorious for having huge taxes.

We have the money to easily pay for services such as welfare, it just isnt being diverted to the correct funds.

I work for the State of Oregon and make way too much money, I would be happy with 20% less and would still be able to support myself easilly. other people are getting paid more for less demanding jobs.

If we where to be able to restructure our administrative branches (which sounds great on paper but would take YEARS and allot of cooperation) we could keep and expand upon policies such as welfare and add more policies for everyone.

We have such a horrendous problem with taking care of our own people in this country (look at katrina the new orleans is still a mess) and then complain about having to do it. Global mentality is to take care of your own people before, lets say *cough*imposing democracy in countries that don't want it*cough*

Well, thems my 2 cents read it or don't. I am entitled to my own opinion no matter how wrong I may be

 

[Baggy]

"There is no greater tyranny than to force a man to pay for something he does not want" - Heinlein

Sniff Sniff

 

[ElasticNinja]

Sniff Sniff

hehe




@byteware, I guess we are fundamentally different.

You think a low tax low government spending economy is best

I believe a high tax (preferably on fixed assets rather than labour) high government well regualted (best consolidated) spending is best, as it makes life better for the working and middle class, prevents internal boom-bust cycles, prevents long-term social problems and creates oppurtunaties for all

BTW IDK if you come from a wealthy family, but I dont

 

[byteware]

And yes welfare, free healthcare, social security. All these things you will find in a socialist society. Right now our country has many socialist policies but we seem to be almost afraid of socialism often relating it to communism, it is almost a bad word.

You do realize that one of those programs, by itself, is projected to bankrupt our government? Right?

We need MORE welfare, look at every other leading country in the world, with they're free healthcare, low unemployment rates, mandatory 2 month vacations. Switzerland for instance has free healthcare, free high speed internet, mandatory 2 months paid vacation, and much more. The downside, the taxes are more, 5% more.

And it has been VERY COSTLY ECONOMICALLY, and they only have 2% of our population. Can you imagine trying to implement that on a scale 50 times larger?

We think we are getting away with paying less in taxes by sacrificing but as it stands we pay more than most countries that have it all together, and almost as much as the countries notorious for having huge taxes.

Are you really trying to imply that you think we'll pay the same in taxes, and get free healthcare? Our taxes will go UP. You don't honestly believe that law makers of either party are all of the sudden going to start spending responsibly because we have free health care?

We have the money to easily pay for services such as welfare, it just isnt being diverted to the correct funds.

I work for the State of Oregon and make way too much money, I would be happy with 20% less and would still be able to support myself easilly. other people are getting paid more for less demanding jobs.

You would be willing to take a pay cut. I would not. I need my pay check to support my family. Most people are just getting by right now, and you are encouraging us to get paid less?

If we where to be able to restructure our administrative branches (which sounds great on paper but would take YEARS and allot of cooperation) we could keep and expand upon policies such as welfare and add more policies for everyone.

We are already going to go bankrupt from either SS, or Medicare (which gets us their first), and you think we have money to be ADDING to that burden?

We have such a horrendous problem with taking care of our own people in this country (look at katrina the new orleans is still a mess) and then complain about having to do it. Global mentality is to take care of your own people before, lets say *cough*imposing democracy in countries that don't want it*cough*

While, I completely agree with you... I supported going into Iraq at the time. I believe if we knew then, what we know now, then we wouldn't have gone, and I wish we hadn't (And I believe that Bush feels the same way.... personally)

Well, thems my 2 cents read it or don't. I am entitled to my own opinion no matter how wrong I may be

Yes you are.

 

[byteware]

@byteware, I guess we are fundamentally different.

It would seem we are

You think a low tax low government spending economy is best

To a degree. I want them to do what they MUST to keep us functioning as a country. There are some things that require federal response, or action (i.e. Gulf Oil Spill, or National Defense). There are things that do not require the federal Government to get involved, and in those things, it shouldn't be involved.

I believe a high tax (preferably on fixed assets rather than labour) high government well regualted (best consolidated) spending is best, as it makes life better for the working and middle class, prevents internal boom-bust cycles, prevents long-term social problems and creates oppurtunaties for all

You do realize that it prevents any kind of real high profit at all? Right? Most of Europe has already been where you want us to go... and they decided to come back.

I'm just curious, can you tell me when government regulation has EVER made opportunities for all?

90% of government regulation is at the request of the industry being regulated. It's designed to discourage competition.

BTW IDK if you come from a wealthy family, but I dont

Nope, I just don't believe we should steal (tax) money that people earned without a damn good reason.

 

[mpw]

...I believe a high tax (preferably on fixed assets rather than labour)...

I'm with byteware in as much as I believe that low tax/low spend is far better than your alternative; why should the wealthy pau so that the poor can live in virtual luxury? (as is the case in some western countries)

...BTW IDK if you come from a wealthy family, but I dont

Shouldn't make any difference, unless you're saying that you only believe in spending wealthy peoples money on the poor, because you're/were poor, regardless as to whether you think it's right or not.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I'm just curious, can you tell me when government regulation has EVER made opportunities for all?

Well that wasnt exactly my point

There is a school of thought that the market can regulate itself etc etc

Bullshit.

We experimented with, and destroyed our economies, hurting the poor most

Of course the people who pushed for it saw it coming and had their massive pensions piled up.
Others were so inept that their employers couldnt get rid of them fast enough


Anyway regarding implementing regulation; there is a big problem in EU regarding layers of it; there is local (council), state, federal (if applicable) and European

And there is way to much crossover

Also it *seems* there are way to many forms for the same bunch of things

There are also some extremely silly regulations which should be removed (cant think of them know)

Also, humans tend to be greedy and malicious, this is why we have regulations too.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Shouldn't make any difference, unless you're saying that you only believe in spending wealthy peoples money on the poor, because you're/were poor, regardless as to whether you think it's right or not.

No my family is nowhere near poor, not in the top 50% but we are far better off then many in other EU states

I'm with byteware in as much as I believe that low tax/low spend is far better than your alternative; why should the wealthy pay so that the poor can live in virtual luxury? (as is the case in some western countries)

As for virtual luxury, this is an issue with some LTUs
The vast majority of unemployed people I know would prefer to be in a job getting the same amount of money as on the dole

As for low tax/low spend, I just dont buy into it

Worst system is low tax/high spend (as my state had during our unsustainable boom)

 

[mpw]

...LTUs...

LTU??

...As for low tax/low spend, I just dont buy into it...

Which bit are you against?! the low tax? or the low spend? bearing in mind that I mean low spend as in not spending on stuff that is not a necessity (statues/art, are not necessary; food/heating for the very poor, is necessary)

 

[Baggy]

I'm with byteware in as much as I believe that low tax/low spend is far better than your alternative; why should the wealthy pau so that the poor can live in virtual luxury? (as is the case in some western countries)

Virtual luxury? I've never heard this term. I can only guess it means people on benefits having ipods rather than 'the poor'? Not that people on benefits aren't poor I'm just pointing out that you can be working and still be poor known as 'in-work poverty'. I'll also add that benefits can also be beneficial Tax credits for working families?. This term 'luxury' is still troubling me, I'm wondering if the people that use this term would be willing to stand by their conviction stop what their doing and sign on if welfare is such luxury?

 

[ElasticNinja]

LTU??



Which bit are you against?! the low tax? or the low spend? bearing in mind that I mean low spend as in not spending on stuff that is not a necessity (statues/art, are not necessary; food/heating for the very poor, is necessary)

I was refferinig to government not people

LTU=Long term unemployed

 

[Member243850]

I think welfare = communism .....and we all know what happened to communism... :

and yes it leads to theft from hard working people... but there are those that need it though

You can't tell me millions of people need welfare.... that is just crazy.... yes there are those that are mentally disabled....handikaped etc...they need welfare yes... but not millions of people... they all can't need it so badly....

I am really sorry to say this but.... "you reap what you sow".... that is life....

 

[Baggy]

You do realize that one of those programs, by itself, is projected to bankrupt our government? Right?

illegal wars like Iraq is what is bankrupting your country. Also Military budget doesn't help

 

[Member243850]

Why can you people not understand that "life is what you make of it"?

Why should we have a system where 1human being = 1vote?
We shud have a system where 1 dollar = 1 vote or something simlilar...

I think those that work harder.... get what they deserve.... and those that do not work hard get what they deserve....and those that work harder shud have the most say....

You see the person / people that spend the most amount of money towards the government (also known as tax) should have the greatest say since it is their money that is being spent at the end of the day....

The rich have earned it and that is why they (the rich / wealthy) get angry...and very frustrated with the poor....

But yes i understand life is not easy.....but nobody said it was....

 

[byteware]

Well that wasnt exactly my point

There is a school of thought that the market can regulate itself etc etc

Bullshit.

We experimented with, and destroyed our economies, hurting the poor most

Umm... what was exactly your point? That government destroys opportunity in the economy? Well, that would seem counter to your point.

Anyway regarding implementing regulation; there is a big problem in EU regarding layers of it; there is local (council), state, federal (if applicable) and European

And there is way to much crossover

Also it *seems* there are way to many forms for the same bunch of things

There are also some extremely silly regulations which should be removed (cant think of them know)

Umm... the US is the exact same way. I'm still unclear on how you expect us to have any more success than European nations.

Also, humans tend to be greedy and malicious, this is why we have regulations too.

Some regulation is absolutely necessary, but there should not be unnecessary regulation. It prevents businesses from being innovative.

 

[byteware]

illegal wars like Iraq is what is bankrupting your country. Also Military budget doesn't help

Social Security and Medicare together are twice our defense spending. And they are still growing considerably. With the Baby Boomers all moving into retirement, those two entitlements would bankrupt this country even if we cut out all defense spending whatsoever.

Facts... they are critical to any discussion.

2009 Defense Spending - 23 % of budget
2009 Social Security - 20% of budget
2009 M/M - 19% of budget

 

[ElasticNinja]

Social Security and Medicare together are twice our defense spending. And they are still growing considerably. With the Baby Boomers all moving into retirement, those two entitlements would bankrupt this country even if we cut out all defense spending whatsoever.

Facts... they are critical to any discussion.

2009 Defense Spending - 23 % of budget
2009 Social Security - 20% of budget
2009 M/M - 19% of budget

23%... christ

Thats like