GOP - the Party of Unemployment

[Nbadan]

The GOP mission from now to Nov. 2010 is simple - keep the Dems and Obama from creating jobs and helping American families at all costs...


From now until 2 November, the Republican party will be the party of unemployment. The logic is straightforward: the more people who are unemployed on election day, the better the prospects for Republicans in the fall election. They expect, with good cause, that voters will hold the Democrats responsible for the state of the economy. Therefore, anything that the Republicans can do to make the economy worse between now and then will help their election prospects.

While it may be bad taste to accuse a major national political party of deliberately wanting to throw people out of jobs, there is no other plausible explanation for the Republicans' behaviour. They have balked at supporting nearly every bill that had any serious hope of creating or keeping jobs, most recently filibustering on bills that provided aid to state and local governments and extending unemployment benefits. The result of the Republicans' actions, unless they are reversed quickly, is that hundreds of thousands more workers will be thrown out of work by the mid-terms.

The story is straightforward. Nearly every state and local government across the country is looking at large budget shortfalls for their 2011 fiscal years, most of which begin on 1 July 2010. Since they are generally required by state constitutions or local charters to balance their budgets, they will have no choice except to raise taxes and/or make large cutbacks and lay off workers to bring spending and revenue into line.

State and local governments have cut their workforce by an average of 65,000 a month over the last three months. Without substantial aid from the federal government, this pace is likely to accelerate. The Republican agenda in blocking aid to the states may add another 300,000 people to the unemployment rolls by early November.

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jul/06/republicans-party-of-unemployment)

The idea is simple for Republicans keep unemployment up and the economy down and then blame it on the Democrats in November.

[CosmicCowboy]

And States not spending more than they bring in with tax revenue is a bad thing? Why is it Texas's responsibility (via Federal government deficit spending) to bail out Illinois for their irresponsibility?

[boutons_deux]

no shit.

Any serious observer figured this out by 22 Jan 09.

I saw an estimate that 400K school, municipal, county, state employees to lose their jobs in the next few months.

[boutons_deux]

Even if the states had absolutely no fat in their spending, the drop in tax revenue due to the Banksters' Great Depression would still cause enormous difficulties.

Below the top 5%, America is fucked. And the Repugs are doing everything they can to deepen and prolong the fuckedness.

[CosmicCowboy]

no shit.

Any serious observer figured this out by 22 Jan 09.

I saw an estimate that 400K school, municipal, county, state employees to lose their jobs in the next few months.

Unlike the Federal government, States have a constitutional mandate to balance their budgets. You either raise taxes, cut expenses, or both.

Pretty simple concept.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Unlike the Federal government, States have a constitutional mandate to balance their budgets. You either raise taxes, cut expenses, or both.

Pretty simple concept.

you mean cut services

[DarrinS]

I don't suppose the Dems can order another census?

[CosmicCowboy]

you mean cut services

If thats what it takes, yeah.

[DarrinS]

(a hem) Supermajority

[Wild Cobra]

you mean cut services
Maybe, but most services aren't anywhere close to a right.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Maybe, but most services aren't anywhere close to a right.

So which services would you cut right from the begining?

[coyotes_geek]

no shit.

Any serious observer figured this out by 22 Jan 09.


Any serious observer figured this out long before then. Whoever's out of power wants to be back in power and bad news helps get people in power get kicked out of power. Doesn't matter which side it is, both teams play the same game.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Any serious observer figured this out long before then. Whoever's out of power wants to be back in power and bad news helps get people in power get kicked out of power. Doesn't matter which side it is, both teams play the same game.

This is when America loses.. unfortunately the flame throwers on both sides are successful enough in demonizing the other side so as long as this continues there will never be bipartisiahip..

[CosmicCowboy]

Personally, I thought that anyone that wanted to be President in 2008 was out of their fucking mind. Just too many systemic problems without the political will to fix them. Obama won the election running against Bush. Unfortunately for him that shit won't work in 2010 or 2012. It just makes him sound like a whiney little bitch.

[ChumpDumper]

And States not spending more than they bring in with tax revenue is a bad thing? Why is it Texas's responsibility (via Federal government deficit spending) to bail out Illinois for their irresponsibility?Do you know how Texas balanced its last budget, CC?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Do you know how Texas balanced its last budget, CC?

I was going to ask the same thing..

[CosmicCowboy]

Do you know how Texas balanced its last budget, CC?

smoke and mirrors.

[Wild Cobra]

So which services would you cut right from the begining?
I would have to look at the whole list of services if it were my choice. It's a hard decision since dependence of such services causes problems to remove them. I wouldn't eliminate everything I would want gone, but cause any large change would have a large impact. The bulk of services would have to be reduced over time since jobs are attached to them. If it were my choice though, over the next few years, a very large share of social services you be gone. Remaining services would be given what they need financially, but under sets of rules that mandate real attempts are made to get out of the need of government services.

[ChumpDumper]

smoke and mirrors.No. It was very real as far as Texas is concerned.

[CosmicCowboy]

No. It was very real as far as Texas is concerned.

I know they used stimulus money last year because it was available. Thats no secret. At the same time we know we are looking at another 18 Billion in cuts and/or a combination of cuts and tax/fee increases. Thats life.

If you are making and spending $100,000 a year and your income drops to $50,000 you don't keep spending $100,000.

[CosmicCowboy]

In fact, the Democratic party in Texas is playing the role of the Republicans in the US Congress and trying to make political capital against Perry and the state Republicans out of the deficits.

[Wild Cobra]

I know they used stimulus money last year because it was available. Thats no secret. At the same time we know we are looking at another 18 Billion in cuts and/or a combination of cuts and tax/fee increases. Thats life.

If you are making and spending $100,000 a year and your income drops to $50,000 you don't keep spending $100,000.
that's what the libtards don't think to understand with taxes either. When you tax people more, they have less to spend into the economy.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I would have to look at the whole list of services if it were my choice. It's a hard decision since dependence of such services causes problems to remove them. I wouldn't eliminate everything I would want gone, but cause any large change would have a large impact. The bulk of services would have to be reduced over time since jobs are attached to them. If it were my choice though, over the next few years, a very large share of social services you be gone. Remaining services would be given what they need financially, but under sets of rules that mandate real attempts are made to get out of the need of government services.


I'd need more details if you are trying get support from someone like me. There are many social services that are needed so if you are going to do away with free and reduced school lunches that would be a negative. If you are going to do away with social services primarily dealing with children and the elderly that would be another negative. from what I see most services are geared towards the young and elderly so you better be ready to defend your cuts to these demographics. "The debt is out of control.." isn't going to cut it. If you were to proceed to try and cut these services then you would surely be a one term'er.. for example I would like to see you sell the ending of food stamps after 6 months because, I assume, in your mind it should be more than enough time to get a job. In reality you're world doesn't necessarily translate into what is actually going on..

[Wild Cobra]

I'd need more details if you are trying get support from someone like me. There are many social services that are needed so if you are going to do away with free and reduced school lunches that would be a negative. If you are going to do away with social services primarily dealing with children and the elderly that would be another negative. from what I see most services are geared towards the young and elderly so you better be ready to defend your cuts to these demographics. "The debt is out of control.." isn't going to cut it. If you were to proceed to try and cut these services then you would surely be a one term'er.. for example I would like to see you sell the ending of food stamps after 6 months because, I assume, in your mind it should be more than enough time to get a job. In reality you're world doesn't necessarily translate into what is actually going on..
Basic services like fire, police, schools, I don't consider social services. There is no master plan. change would require changes based on responses of other changes. You cannot just make a plan and do it.

How about this. I would start by requiring drug testing of those receiving social services and not working. A simple change that will make people want to work if they have to support their own habits rather than tax payers.

In the long run, my intent of changes would be to make it more practical for a person to work rather than not work. we neen more tax payers and less tax users.

[ChumpDumper]

I know they used stimulus money last year because it was available. Thats no secret.So why is it Illinois' responsibility (via Federal government deficit spending) to bail out Texas for their irresponsibility?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Basic services like fire, police, schools, I don't consider social services. There is no master plan. change would require changes based on responses of other changes. You cannot just make a plan and do it.

How about this. I would start by requiring drug testing of those receiving social services and not working. A simple change that will make people want to work if they have to support their own habits rather than tax payers.

In the long run, my intent of changes would be to make it more practical for a person to work rather than not work. we neen more tax payers and less tax users.

I'm ok with drug testing anyone who is on the govt dime. With that being said, if that person was supporting children on the govt dime then what? What does the state do about these kids? You can't let them not have health coverage or eat free lunches in school.. so what then?

The only reason I bring these instances up is because it's easy to say cut social services but when the rubber meets the road it is not as cut and dry as you are making it out to be. Are their lazy people doing whatever they can to live off the govt? Absolutley. Are there people who actually need govt assistance to survive? Absolutely.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm ok with drug testing anyone who is on the govt dime. With that being said, if that person was supporting children on the govt dime then what? What does the state do about these kids? You can't let them not have health coverage or eat free lunches in school.. so what then?

The only reason I bring these instances up is because it's easy to say cut social services but when the rubber meets the road it is not as cut and dry as you are making it out to be. Are their lazy people doing whatever they can to live off the govt? Absolutley. Are there people who actually need govt assistance to survive? Absolutely.
I don't have the particulars, just that we need ways to motivate people to take care of themselves. As for the women with, we get the fathers to pay child support in cases that warrant it.

I have repeatedly pointed out in past threads I am not in favor of removing social services from those who truly need it.

[CosmicCowboy]

So why is it Illinois' responsibility (via Federal government deficit spending) to bail out Texas for their irresponsibility?

Illinois got their stimulus money too. Blago probably stole it.

[ChumpDumper]

Illinois got their stimulus money too.So why did you pretend Texas didn't?

If I read this right, Texas received slightly more money per capita than Illinois.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-STIMULUS0109.html

Those rugged individualists in Alaska got the most.

[Nbadan]

Congress has no problem passing funding bills for Afghanistan and Iraq but
the GOP won't help Americans...


By the time Congress returns from its July 4 recess next week, more than 2.1 million will have missed checks. The House passed a bill to reauthorize the benefits last week; a similar bill failed in the upper chamber due to a Republican filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that as soon as there is a replacement for the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Democrats will have the 60 votes they need and the bill will pass. If Reid is correct, layoff victims will be paid retroactively for any missed checks.

Without a reauthorization, 3.2 million long-term unemployed will have found themselves ineligible for extended benefits by the end of the month. If Congress fails to act, it will be the first time since at least the 1950s that federally-funded extended benefits have been allowed to lapse with a national unemployment rate above 7.2 percent.

"I received my last check on June 24th. If Congress doesn't approve the extension, I will have no money," said Shanae Dale of Louisville, Ky, who said she was laid off in December. "I will not be able to pay my rent, car insurance, utility bills or buy groceries. I would like to know how many of the members of Congress can't sleep at night because the only thing that occupies their minds is finding a job and paying bills."

Huff (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/unemployment-extension-st_n_636405.html)

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't have the particulars, just that we need ways to motivate people to take care of themselves. As for the women with, we get the fathers to pay child support in cases that warrant it.

I have repeatedly pointed out in past threads I am not in favor of removing social services from those who truly need it.

I agree with you.

[Nbadan]

We can start with paying people a living wage...it's impossible to raise kids at $10.00/hr and not rely on social services to cover the gaps...

[Wild Cobra]

We can start with paying people a living wage...it's impossible to raise kids at $10.00/hr and not rely on social services to cover the gaps...
How about start by teaching social responsibility. That if you cannot afford to have kids, don't get pregnant.

[Nbadan]

How about start by teaching social responsibility. That if you cannot afford to have kids, don't get pregnant.

How do you propose that? Teaching them to say no to sex....yeah, that works..

[spursncowboys]

Basic services like fire, police, schools, I don't consider social services. There is no master plan. change would require changes based on responses of other changes. You cannot just make a plan and do it.

How about this. I would start by requiring drug testing of those receiving social services and not working. A simple change that will make people want to work if they have to support their own habits rather than tax payers.

In the long run, my intent of changes would be to make it more practical for a person to work rather than not work. we neen more tax payers and less tax users.
A concrete time framed up-side down pyramid wlfare payout program. The longer you are on it, the less you get? Cut down and purge half our government dept.s. After all the waste is minimized, then I'd be ok with raising taxes - 20% flat tax.

[CosmicCowboy]

So why did you pretend Texas didn't?

If I read this right, Texas received slightly more money per capita than Illinois.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-STIMULUS0109.html

Those rugged individualists in Alaska got the most.

Chump, I didn't pretend anything. I didn't agree with the stimulus spending then and don't agree with it now. This was going to be new spending...not last years. Enough is enough. States need to balance their damn budgets.

[ChumpDumper]

How about start by teaching social responsibility. That if you cannot afford to have kids, don't get pregnant.And if that doesn't work?

[Nbadan]

A concrete time framed up-side down pyramid wlfare payout program. The longer you are on it, the less you get? Cut down and purge half our government dept.s. After all the waste is minimized, then I'd be ok with raising taxes - 20% flat tax.

Let poor kids not eat and more deregulation, then raise their taxes and user fees, that's seriously your answer?

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, I didn't pretend anything.Sure you did. You tried to portray the situation as Texas bailing out Illinois. To do that you had to pretend that Texas itself wasn't getting bailed out.

[spursncowboys]

How do you propose that? Teaching them to say no to sex....yeah, that works..

letting govt. decide what is fair works just as well.

[spursncowboys]

Let poor kids not eat and more deregulation, then raise their taxes and user fees, that's seriously your answer?

you want a gustapo style fairness dictator to make sure we are all poor. are you serious?

[spursncowboys]

Sure you did. You tried to portray the situation as Texas bailing out Illinois. To do that you had to pretend that Texas itself wasn't getting bailed out.

way to go allstar.

he started from p. 1 saying that he realized texas got a bailout. it was a 2 sentence post.

come on champ.

[Nbadan]

letting govt. decide what is fair works just as well.

...why are the poor responsible for people living longer and health-care costs that exceed the rate of inflation...those are the two primary factors driving social spending costs...

[Wild Cobra]

Chump, I didn't pretend anything. I didn't agree with the stimulus spending then and don't agree with it now. This was going to be new spending...not last years. Enough is enough. States need to balance their damn budgets.
As long as libtards can make "boogymen" out of the rich, they can justify wanting to steel more from society.

[CosmicCowboy]

Low income people are rational. Reward single mothers with federal/state support for having babies and they will have babies. And have more babies. And have more babies. It's the unintended consequences of good intentions.

[Nbadan]

As long as libtards can make "boogymen" out of the rich, they can justify wanting to steel more from society.

..but it's ok for the rich to steal from the poor by not paying a living wage or offering health insurance, right?

[ChumpDumper]

way to go allstar.

he started from p. 1 saying that he realized texas got a bailout. it was a 2 sentence post.

come on champ.Exactly.

He contradicted himself.

Thanks for noticing a half hour late.

I guess that is an improvement for you.

[Wild Cobra]

Low income people are rational. Reward single mothers with federal/state support for having babies and they will have babies. And have more babies. And have more babies. It's the unintended consequences of good intentions.
I completely agree. Too bad the left doesn't understand the simple concept of what rewarding poor choices does.

[Nbadan]

Low income people are rational. Reward single mothers with federal/state support for having babies and they will have babies. And have more babies. And have more babies. It's the unintended consequences of good intentions.

...its the unintended consequences of the poverty cycle...the more people stop being poor, the less babies they have...

[ChumpDumper]

Low income people are rational. Reward single mothers with federal/state support for having babies and they will have babies. And have more babies. And have more babies. It's the unintended consequences of good intentions.How many babies do the average mothers on government support have?

Give a link to the information. I'm curious to see that.

[CosmicCowboy]

Exactly.

He contradicted himself.

Thanks for noticing a half hour late.

I guess that is an improvement for you.

What part of "I didn't agree with the stimulus to start with" didn't you get.

So Texas took the money and reduced their deficit. Big deal. They could have pissed it off on new programs and didn't. Bravo.

I'm confident Texas will be able to work through it's budget problems without being bailed out by the Feds.

I cant' say the same for California and Illinois. It's time for some tough love.

[ChumpDumper]

What part of "I didn't agree with the stimulus to start with" didn't you get.

So Texas took the money and reduced their deficit. Big deal. They could have pissed it off on new programs and didn't. Bravo.

I'm confident Texas will be able to work through it's budget problems without being bailed out by the Feds.

I cant' say the same for California and Illinois. It's time for some tough love.So you were for federal bailouts of states before you were against them.

OK.

[CosmicCowboy]

How many babies do the average mothers on government support have?

Give a link to the information. I'm curious to see that.

Judging by the urban neighborhood my office is in I would say 2-3 on average.

Find a link to refute me.

[DMX7]

The best time to go on a diet is when you're starving.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you were for federal bailouts of states before you were against them.

OK.

You have serious reading comprehension issues.

[Spurminator]

I'd like to see welfare and unemployment revised so that the number of children does not factor into the amount received. If that means childless recipients can coast a little more on their check, fine.

[CosmicCowboy]

The best time to go on a diet is when you're starving.

Actually, the ones around my office are all real fat.

[DMX7]

Actually, the ones around my office are all real fat.

It's a metaphor for our country.

But on that point, junk food is usually cheaper than healthier food.

[Nbadan]

The best time to go on a diet is when you're starving.

See, the GOP had no problem exploding federal spending deficits while unemployment was at historic lows...and it wasn't just the Bush administration, the GOP Congress signed off on the deficit spending too..

[ChumpDumper]

Judging by the urban neighborhood my office is in I would say 2-3 on average.

Find a link to refute me.Find a link to support you first.

Since the average number of children per household with children in the US is 2, your little anecdote doesn't even support your thesis well.

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabST-F1-2000.pdf

[ChumpDumper]

You have serious reading comprehension issues.You have some serious self-contradiction issues.

[Nbadan]

I'd like to see welfare and unemployment revised so that the number of children does not factor into the amount received. If that means childless recipients can coast a little more on their check, fine.

Almost half our kids already live below the poverty level and you want to make that worse, seriously?

[DMX7]

I have a suspicious feeling black people are behind this whole unemployment thing.

...and that zebra Barack Obama isn't the only one.

[Spurminator]

Almost half our kids already live below the poverty level and you want to make that worse, seriously?

Who said make it worse? To do what I proposed (to get it passed, anyway) would probably require an increase in benefits overall, but those without children would just see more of an increase than those with.

[Nbadan]

Who said make it worse? To do what I proposed (to get it passed, anyway) would probably require an increase in benefits overall, but those without children would just see more of an increase than those with.

....people aren't getting rich by having babies and living off the dole...you want to punish kids because of their parents choices....any increases in benfits typically fail to meet the rise in inflation...

[spursncowboys]

It's a metaphor for our country.

But on that point, junk food is usually cheaper than healthier food.

fast food wise yes. it's much cheaper at wally world.

[Spurminator]

....people aren't getting rich by having babies and living off the dole...you want to punish kids because of their parents choices....any increases in benfits typically fail to meet the rise in inflation...

How is it punishing the kids?

Nobody is getting rich, but regardless of how many are taking advantage, whether it's .01% or 10% or 50%, there is a built-in incentive that should be eliminated.

And it's not like individual cases couldn't be addressed.

[spursncowboys]

Almost half our kids already live below the poverty level and you want to make that worse, seriously?
what's the poverty line? 75 k/yr?. I know two years ago in the military I was able to recieve food stamps.

[Nbadan]

what's the poverty line? 75 k/yr?. I know two years ago in the military I was able to recieve food stamps.

that's the military idea of poverty, of course with their trillion dollar a year budget..the civilian poverty line was less than $20,000/yr last I checked....try raising kids on that!

[CosmicCowboy]

Whats so hard to understand about not having kids if you can't afford them? I see working couples postpone having kids all the time till they feel solvent enough to proceed. The problem is the teenage single mothers I see all around the neighborhood dragging 2-3 brats behind them with another one in the oven...each kid gives them another $6,000 a year in tax free income and it's totally rational for them to keep spitting them out.

[ChumpDumper]

The poverty "guideline" Iis a bit over $22k for a family of four.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml

[boutons_deux]

"built-in incentive that should be eliminated"

you guys are real tough on the unemployed, but let slide all the "incentives" the corps have to buy Congressman.

I'd guess corporate subsidies, tax breaks, loopholes add up to 100s of $Bs more than welfare cheats.

[CosmicCowboy]

"built-in incentive that should be eliminated"

you guys are real tough on the unemployed, but let slide all the "incentives" the corps have to buy Congressman.

I'd guess corporate subsidies, tax breaks, loopholes add up to 100s of $Bs more than welfare cheats.

I HATE that bullshit. Lets start with the Ethanol subsidies.

[Nbadan]

How is it punishing the kids?

Nobody is getting rich, but regardless of how many are taking advantage, whether it's .01% or 10% or 50%, there is a built-in incentive that should be eliminated.

And it's not like individual cases couldn't be addressed.

...more kids - equal money means less money per kid...

You want to break the cycle of poverty you have to give people more money not less....of course, that means a $15 dollar per hour living wage...

[ChumpDumper]

I HATE that bullshit. Lets start with the Ethanol subsidies.I would start with the law that allowed BP to write off 70% of its renting of the Deepwater Horizon.

[Nbadan]

"built-in incentive that should be eliminated"

you guys are real tough on the unemployed, but let slide all the "incentives" the corps have to buy Congressman.

I'd guess corporate subsidies, tax breaks, loopholes add up to 100s of $Bs more than welfare cheats.

Exactly.......the politicians love us to argue over peanuts while corporations get to do things like write off their expenses and people don't - let me write off my food costs, operating costs like air/elec/insurance before determining my fair tax share...

[spursncowboys]

that's the military idea of poverty, of course with their trillion dollar a year budget..the civilian poverty line was less than $20,000/yr last I checked....try raising kids on that!

no matter what your job you have to put the paperwork in with a state.

[Spurminator]

...more kids - equal money means less money per kid...

I don't see it as a problem that families of two would receive more $$ "per child" than families of eight.

No one is interested in starving the larger families. They wouldn't see their benefits go down. Smaller families would just see theirs go up.


You want to break the cycle of poverty you have to give people more money not less....of course, that means a $15 dollar per hour living wage...

The dollars added to the economy would probably just be offset by labor costs with that drastic of an increase in the minimum wage.

[Spurminator]

"built-in incentive that should be eliminated"

you guys are real tough on the unemployed, but let slide all the "incentives" the corps have to buy Congressman.

I'd guess corporate subsidies, tax breaks, loopholes add up to 100s of $Bs more than welfare cheats.

Then start a thread about it.

[Nbadan]

I don't see it as a problem that families of two would receive more $$ "per child" than families of eight.

No one is interested in starving the larger families. They wouldn't see their benefits go down. Smaller families would just see theirs go up.

You really think that the poor have the capacity to plan out how much or how much less money they can get from the govt if they have or don't have another baby? Seriously?

[CosmicCowboy]

You really think that the poor have the capacity to plan out how much or how much less money they can get from the govt if they have or don't have another baby? Seriously?

Jeez, listen to the LIBERAL. They are poor and usually uneducated. They aren't stupid.

[CosmicCowboy]

As far as I'm concerned, I say we pay unwed mothers for the first kid just like we have always done. I'll even pay for the second one as long as they agree to get their tubes tied while they are in the hospital squirting out #2.

[Nbadan]

You don't understand the cycle of poverty - plain and simple....no welfare mom is gonna stop having babies because she's gonna get less than from the govt....

[CosmicCowboy]

You don't understand the cycle of poverty - plain and simple....no welfare mom is gonna stop having babies because she's gonna get less than from the govt....

Thats some hard core intellectual elitism there!

You obviously consider poor people sub-human and incapable of rational thought if you really believe that.

[Nbadan]

As far as I'm concerned, I say we pay unwed mothers for the first kid just like we have always done. I'll even pay for the second one as long as they agree to get their tubes tied while they are in the hospital squirting out #2.

Yeah, that has worked wonders for China...

[Nbadan]

Thats some hard core intellectual elitism there!

You obviously consider poor people sub-human and incapable of rational thought if you really believe that.

Losing the message, attack the messenger....typical wing-nut redirection...

[Wild Cobra]

that's the military idea of poverty, of course with their trillion dollar a year budget..the civilian poverty line was less than $20,000/yr last I checked....try raising kids on that!
You don't know diddly, do you?

Military personnel who qualify for food stamps must meet the same requirements anyone else does.

Current E-4 pay ranges from $1,889.70 to $2,293.80 monthly. E-3 wages from $1,705.80 $1,923.00. E2 wages are $1,622.10 monthly and E-1 wages are $1,447.20 monthly.

some of these are below the $20k annual.

[Wild Cobra]

I HATE that bullshit. Lets start with the Ethanol subsidies.
No shit. those are real subsidies.

[Wild Cobra]

I would start with the law that allowed BP to write off 70% of its renting of the Deepwater Horizon.
Raising taxes on producers are why more producers leave the USA and employ people elsewhere.

We need more good paying tax payers, not less.

[CosmicCowboy]

Losing the message, attack the messenger....typical wing-nut redirection...

Wing nut re-direction? :lmao

Do you realize how arrogant and presumptuous your statement was? Do you HONESTLY believe poor people are too stupid to realize that the system is set up to reward them for having babies?

[ploto]

Nearly every state and local government across the country is looking at large budget shortfalls for their 2011 fiscal years, most of which begin on 1 July 2010. Since they are generally required by state constitutions or local charters to balance their budgets, they will have no choice except to raise taxes and/or make large cutbacks and lay off workers to bring spending and revenue into line.

Welcome to Texas.

[ChumpDumper]

Raising taxes on producers are why more producers leave the USA and employ people elsewhere.

We need more good paying tax payers, not less.You think BP really needed a tax break on the Deepwater Horizon?

Yes or no.

[Wild Cobra]

You think BP really needed a tax break on the Deepwater Horizon?

Yes or no.
I think ALL businesses need a tax break. I don't discriminate in that regard, or use my personal likes or dislikes to decide who gets taxed and who doesn't.

[CosmicCowboy]

All legitimate business expenses should be deductible at the very least. Calling expense deductions "tax breaks for business" is disingenuous at best. If I sell a job for $100,000 that cost me $92,000 to complete I should be taxed on the $8000 profit and not the $100,000 gross sale.

[Nbadan]

Wing nut re-direction? :lmao

Do you realize how arrogant and presumptuous your statement was? Do you HONESTLY believe poor people are too stupid to realize that the system is set up to reward them for having babies?

Why do you presume I think working poor are stupid? They aren't stupid, but they also aren't as conniving as you apparently...the poor have less choices and less to lose by having kids...and many just see sex as fun from an otherwise routine life, plus being pregnant gives mothers a sense that they are special because everyone treats them that way...there are tons of factors that come into play, however among the least is how much more or less they are going to get from the govt...

[CosmicCowboy]

Why do you presume I think working poor are stupid? They aren't stupid, but they also aren't as conniving as you apparently...the poor have less choices and less to lose by having kids...and many just see sex as fun from an otherwise routine life, plus being pregnant gives mothers a sense that they are special because everyone treats them that way...there are tons of factors that come into play, however among the least is how much more or less they are going to get from the govt...

Uhhh....could it be YOUR OWN WORDS?


You really think that the poor have the capacity to plan out how much or how much less money they can get from the govt if they have or don't have another baby? Seriously?

Don't have the mental capacity? REALLY?

[TeyshaBlue]

Why do you presume I think working poor are stupid? They aren't stupid, but they also aren't as conniving as you apparently...the poor have less choices and less to lose by having kids...and many just see sex as fun from an otherwise routine life, plus being pregnant gives mothers a sense that they are special because everyone treats them that way...there are tons of factors that come into play, however among the least is how much more or less they are going to get from the govt...

And you are able to crawl into the psyche of the poor, how exactly?

[Nbadan]

And you are able to crawl into the psyche of the poor, how exactly?

I've worked with them....also, I grew up poor, dirt poor, but make 6 figures today

[Spurminator]

Why do you presume I think working poor are stupid? They aren't stupid, but they also aren't as conniving as you apparently...the poor have less choices and less to lose by having kids...and many just see sex as fun from an otherwise routine life, plus being pregnant gives mothers a sense that they are special because everyone treats them that way...there are tons of factors that come into play, however among the least is how much more or less they are going to get from the govt...

Sure but it's still a factor and it doesn't need to be. I agree that for most people it's not on the radar. But why even make it available to be exploited?

Call me crazy, but I'd rather incentivise people NOT to have kids than give tax breaks or added benefits for having kids. Poor or not.

[TeyshaBlue]

I've worked with them....also, I grew up poor, dirt poor, but make 6 figures today

That's odd. I too grew up poor. I've also worked with poor people (them:rolleyes), extensively both as a teacher and thru the Job Corps. My experiences don't exactly grok yours.

It's not a sword fight, dan.....nobody cares how much we make.

[ChumpDumper]

I think ALL businesses need a tax break. I don't discriminate in that regard, or use my personal likes or dislikes to decide who gets taxed and who doesn't.Every business everywhere needs a tax break?


All legitimate business expenses should be deductible at the very least. Calling expense deductions "tax breaks for business" is disingenuous at best. If I sell a job for $100,000 that cost me $92,000 to complete I should be taxed on the $8000 profit and not the $100,000 gross sale.So they should get breaks on the royalties they pay to the government as well?

Would BP never make any money without these breaks?

[CosmicCowboy]

Every business everywhere needs a tax break?

So they should get breaks on the royalties they pay to the government as well?

Would BP never make any money without these breaks?

I know the government gets what...20 billion a year in offshore royalties?

CD, I get your point. Big Oil has bought congress to get subsidies they really don't need, just Like Big Agriculture bought congress for the ethanol subsidies. It's all equally wrong.

[TeyshaBlue]

Every business everywhere needs a tax break?

So they should get breaks on the royalties they pay to the government as well?

Would BP never make any money without these breaks?

I'm more curious as to what kind of tax breaks WC is refering to. Abatements? Rebates on receipts? I'm not sure every business needs one. I'm sure they want one, but need? Not so much.

[ChumpDumper]

I know the government gets what...20 billion a year in offshore royalties?Could be more.


CD, I get your point. Big Oil has bought congress to get subsidies they really don't need, just Like ConAgra bought congress for the ethanol subsidies. It's all equally wrong.Agreed.

[CosmicCowboy]

Like I have stated previously I agree with business related tax deductions. Beyond that, ALL tax credits, rebates, abatements, etc. are either direct payoffs for bribes by corporations/organizations/unions or attempts by GOVERNMENT AND POLITICIANS to influence otherwise rational behavior by individuals and businesses.

Did the electric vehicle tax credits last year INFLUENCE me to buy electric vehicles? Hell yes. Would I have bought new electric vehicles without the tax credit? Hell No. Did I really NEED two new golf carts? Not really...I already had two old ones that worked. Given that I was gonna either pay $13,000 for 2 new golf carts or send the IRS a check for $13,000 and not even get a "thank you" the decision was pretty fucking easy.

Rational and informed people will adjust their behavior given irrational tax incentives.

[CosmicCowboy]

And all subsidies, even well meaning ones like college loans can have unintended negative consequences.

Take Manny is God as an example.

He's not very smart, but he has learned that if he just stays in school he can keep borrowing money to live on and doesn't have to work or produce anything. He can sleep till mid-afternoon every day and then come in here and make snarky comments to people that actually work and produce things.

Achieving anything in life is not the goal. The goal is to stay in school so he can continue to borrow money to live on without working.

Now, since he is stupid, he really can't take anything hard because he can't afford to make bad grades because then he can't stay in school.

But since he only takes cushy classes he will eventually (after stretching it out as long as he possibly can) probably graduate with a piece of paper that says he is a college graduate. It will be a worthless degree and no one will hire him, but it will be a degree.

When he can't find a job (because anything he might possibly actually be capable of doing is beneath him because he is a "college graduate") he will decide to go back to school so he can get back on the student loan program again.

After he has his masters and still can't get a job he will default on his student loans (because it's the racist governments fault he can't get a position that pays him what he thinks he is worth) and will live with his parents forever.

If he had just gone to work at McDonalds out of high school he could be an assistant manager by now!

[Wild Cobra]

I'm more curious as to what kind of tax breaks WC is refering to. Abatements? Rebates on receipts? I'm not sure every business needs one. I'm sure they want one, but need? Not so much.
I have said before that businesses should not be taxed.

Think about it. The owners of business get taxed twice. their company gets taxed, and then they get taxed. In the case of companies with share holders, the shareholders get taxed on their profits, after the business is taxed.

My primary reason for not wanting businesses taxed has to do with global competition. We would be far more competitive.

[Nbadan]

That's odd. I too grew up poor. I've also worked with poor people (them:rolleyes), extensively both as a teacher and thru the Job Corps. My experiences don't exactly grok yours.

It's not a sword fight, dan.....nobody cares how much we make.

My point is that I have seen both sides of the coin - living in poverty and its causes and effects and ending the cycle of poverty for my family...

....my experience is that working with the poor too long can really jade you over time - as seems to have happened to you....it can jade you because you fail to understand the poverty mindset and some of the poor decisions they make because you've never had to make life choices like the working poor have to make everyday yourself....your jaded, you have no sympathy for the poor, its a characteristic I've seen in many well intentioned wing-nuts...

[Nbadan]

And all subsidies, even well meaning ones like college loans can have unintended negative consequences.

Ultimately, maybe Manny finds his niche and ends up more successful than you...after all, the key too success today, unlike your time CC, is working smarter not harder..

[DMX7]

My primary reason for not wanting businesses taxed has to do with global competition. We would be far more competitive.

Ha! Not even the most brain dead neo-con dick economist has ever suggested NO businesses should ever be taxed.

I'll give you a little preview of America's credit status if that shit ever happens: D-E-F-A-U-L-T.

You're welcome.

[Nbadan]

Most businesses pay very little in federal taxes anyway because of write-offs and business expenses...

[DMX7]

Most businesses pay very little in federal taxes anyway because of write-offs and business expenses...

Which is completely different from eliminating all taxes from businesses. Individuals get away with some pretty ridiculous LEGAL tax evasion strategies too.

[DMX7]

But on that point, it's the multinational corporations that usually get away with the most egregious tax evasion. They need to be clamped down on. Obama is trying to do that by stopping some of the more exotic off-shore account stratgies.

[Nbadan]

Which is completely different from eliminating all taxes from businesses. Individuals get away with some pretty ridiculous LEGAL tax evasion strategies too.

..but the majority of two worker family pay their fair share...in fact, family with two professional workers pay the majority of taxes in the U.S., not corporations

[admiralsnackbar]

And all subsidies, even well meaning ones like college loans can have unintended negative consequences.

Take Manny is God as an example.

He's not very smart, but he has learned that if he just stays in school he can keep borrowing money to live on and doesn't have to work or produce anything. He can sleep till mid-afternoon every day and then come in here and make snarky comments to people that actually work and produce things.

Achieving anything in life is not the goal. The goal is to stay in school so he can continue to borrow money to live on without working.

Now, since he is stupid, he really can't take anything hard because he can't afford to make bad grades because then he can't stay in school.

But since he only takes cushy classes he will eventually (after stretching it out as long as he possibly can) probably graduate with a piece of paper that says he is a college graduate. It will be a worthless degree and no one will hire him, but it will be a degree.

When he can't find a job (because anything he might possibly actually be capable of doing is beneath him because he is a "college graduate") he will decide to go back to school so he can get back on the student loan program again.

After he has his masters and still can't get a job he will default on his student loans (because it's the racist governments fault he can't get a position that pays him what he thinks he is worth) and will live with his parents forever.

If he had just gone to work at McDonalds out of high school he could be an assistant manager by now!

Yeah... that un-American self-improvement shit is for homos.

Let's all get factory jobs and watch the corporations ship our work abroad when we have the temerity to ask for a fucking dental plan.

[Wild Cobra]

But on that point, it's the multinational corporations that usually get away with the most egregious tax evasion. They need to be clamped down on. Obama is trying to do that by stopping some of the more exotic off-shore account stratgies.
That may be the excuse, of even belief. I see it as a means of destroying our freedoms.

Please tell me. What corporation has avoided paying taxes? I suggest you look up their stock symbol and balance sheets and income statements to see just how much they do pay in taxes first.

[Wild Cobra]

DMX7...

Exxon was everyone's favorite target for a while. In 2007, they paid $28.9 billion in taxes leaving only $40.6 billion in net income. 2008, $36.5 billion in taxes and $45.2 billion net income. 2009 $15.1 billion in taxes and $19.2 billion net income.

Why should a corporation have to pay 41.6% to 44.75 in taxes, of their taxable income?

[TeyshaBlue]

My point is that I have seen both sides of the coin - living in poverty and its causes and effects and ending the cycle of poverty for my family...

....my experience is that working with the poor too long can really jade you over time - as seems to have happened to you....it can jade you because you fail to understand the poverty mindset and some of the poor decisions they make because you've never had to make life choices like the working poor have to make everyday yourself....your jaded, you have no sympathy for the poor, its a characteristic I've seen in many well intentioned wing-nuts...

I'm jaded. :lmao
You don't know shit about me, dan. Honestly. You couldn't be more wrong, but then again, you'd never admit it if you could ever bring yourself to realize it.
I fucking lived the cycle of "poor" decisions and I also managed to make a few pretty astute ones as well....very much like the kids I worked with in Job Corps. It's a mix, dan. Get over yourself.:rolleyes

[TeyshaBlue]

I have said before that businesses should not be taxed.

Think about it. The owners of business get taxed twice. their company gets taxed, and then they get taxed. In the case of companies with share holders, the shareholders get taxed on their profits, after the business is taxed.

My primary reason for not wanting businesses taxed has to do with global competition. We would be far more competitive.

Taxes are only one driver of cost. I'm not sure it's even a major one after all the write-offs and exemptions/rebates are factored in. Most businesses effective tax rates are lower than mine.

[boutons_deux]

"What corporation has avoided paying taxes"

Goldman Sucks paid not a penny in 2009, IIRC.

That Houston company, Transocean, has a small staff in Switzerland to avoid paying US taxes.

etc, etc, etc. "You Can't Be Serious"

Also, 50K wealthy Americans have secret accounts in Switzerland that Switzerland won't reveal. There are probably 10s of 1000s of other Americans with money stashed in other tax cheat countries.

[TeyshaBlue]

DMX7...

Exxon was everyone's favorite target for a while. In 2007, they paid $28.9 billion in taxes leaving only $40.6 billion in net income. 2008, $36.5 billion in taxes and $45.2 billion net income. 2009 $15.1 billion in taxes and $19.2 billion net income.

Why should a corporation have to pay 41.6% to 44.75 in taxes, of their taxable income?

Umm...net income is income minus expenses and taxes. They did not pay 41.6 or 44.75% percent. According to Securities & Exchange Commission filings, Exxon paid an effective tax rate of 34% to the U.S. government in 2007.

[coyotes_geek]

Umm...net income is income minus expenses and taxes. They did not pay 41.6 or 44.75% percent. According to Securities & Exchange Commission filings, Exxon paid an effective tax rate of 34% to the U.S. government in 2007.

Exxon's latest 10-Q.

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=7234508-7992-9038&type=sect&dcn=0001193125-10-110539

Net income before income taxes: $12.068 B
Income taxes: $5.493 B

Effective tax rate for this quarter was 45.5%.

On top of that $5.493 B for federal income taxes, Exxon also paid another $8.613 B in other taxes (state, local, foreign). Basically when it's all said and done Exxon ends up paying about twice as much in taxes as they end up with in profits.

[TeyshaBlue]

Exxon's latest 10-Q.

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=7234508-7992-9038&type=sect&dcn=0001193125-10-110539

Net income before income taxes: $12.068 B
Income taxes: $5.493 B

Effective tax rate for this quarter was 45.5%.

On top of that $5.493 B for federal income taxes, Exxon also paid another $8.613 B in other taxes (state, local, foreign). Basically when it's all said and done Exxon ends up paying about twice as much in taxes as they end up with in profits.

This is predicated on the assumption that Exxon's tax payment reflects it's global operations. It doesn't.
Exxon harbors billions of dollars in it's offshore operations. It also expenses costs to wholly owned subsidiaries. It pays itself to ship oil to itself and takes that cost, with it's markup, as an expense.
The 10Q, while informative, is not an accurate snapshot of what eventually becomes Exxon's tax liability.

[Wild Cobra]

Umm...net income is income minus expenses and taxes. They did not pay 41.6 or 44.75% percent. According to Securities & Exchange Commission filings, Exxon paid an effective tax rate of 34% to the U.S. government in 2007.
Did I say otherwise?

My 2007 number of 41.6% minus the 34% federal leaves 7.6% for state and local taxes, right?

[TeyshaBlue]

Did I say otherwise?

My 2007 number of 41.6% minus the 34% federal leaves 7.6% for state and local taxes, right?

My bad. I thought we were discussing Federal Income Taxes.

[Wild Cobra]

My bad. I thought we were discussing Federal Income Taxes.
Yes, but total taxation matters. Lets assume were were talking about three separate taxing authorities and only focused on one taxing 34%. Meanwhile, do we see the whole picture leaving the others out? It would really matter if they were also taxing 34% each, wouldn't it....