Obama tax cut 'refunds' those who don't pay

[Imawhosure]

I'd like to keep more of what I work for. Wouldn't everyone?

 

How does a person work to get a refund for taxes they didn't pay in the first place?

Good question. Let's resurrect Jerry Ford and Ronald Reagan, and ask them. Then we can ask Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. EITC got expanded by two Republican president's, one of whom is the hero of all the conservatives.

 

Any frickin' way you want to slice-and-dice it, this little bit of social engineering started with the GOP.

 

Hehehehehehehehehe, but to much of a good thing ends up being a bad thing. If that were not the case, people would not be put into rehab for sex addiction, now would they, lolol.

 

So then, how much you want to give them???? Get it up high enough, and we can all stay at home and wake up just in time to watch Oprah cause there won't be any reason to work!!! After all, if it is for free, it's for me.

 

Look at it this way all------------->you work 30 or 40yrs to collect your retirement from your place of business. (if they offer one) In todays economy, you gotta worry it isn't going to be there. But here we have people who never worked, or maybe hardly ever worked, digging in someones pocket as if it is a birth right. And if their check isn't there?!?!?!?!?!?! Why you are just a rotten conservative, aren't you, lolol.

 

You earned it, and may lose it; they earned nothing, and get something. Such is the logic of America today. It is obvious, that we older people have done something seriously wrong raising our children, because they think because we gave them everything we could, the rest of America owes them something too.

[fmccap]

Sickness Unto Debt

One of the burning questions regarding the recently passed bailout, and the one that almost no one has bothered to answer, is how the government intends to pay for it. Governments have three main methods by which they can raise funds: taxation, printing new money, and debt. As our $10 trillion national debt shows, the federal government has always enjoyed raising money by issuing new debt. Money is gained upfront, while the cost of repaying that debt is pushed onto future generations.

 

Our government has lived beyond its means for decades. We now face a crucial juncture, at which we determine whether to continue down the path of debt, inflation, and government intervention or choose to return to the economics of the free market, which have been ignored for almost a century. Increased debt leads to higher taxes on future generations, while increased inflation diminishes the purchasing power of American families and destroys the dollar. No society has ever been achieved prosperity through indebtedness or inflation, and the United States is no exception. We cannot afford to continue our current policies of monetary expansion and unending bailouts. Unless we return to sound monetary policy, sharply reduce government expenditures, and realize that the government cannot act as a lender of last resort, we will drive our economy to ruin.

[Len_A]

Hehehehehehehehehe, but to much of a good thing ends up being a bad thing. If that were not the case, people would not be put into rehab for sex addiction, now would they, lolol.

 

So then, how much you want to give them???? Get it up high enough, and we can all stay at home and wake up just in time to watch Oprah cause there won't be any reason to work!!! After all, if it is for free, it's for me.

 

Look at it this way all------------->you work 30 or 40yrs to collect your retirement from your place of business. (if they offer one) In todays economy, you gotta worry it isn't going to be there. But here we have people who never worked, or maybe hardly ever worked, digging in someones pocket as if it is a birth right. And if their check isn't there?!?!?!?!?!?! Why you are just a rotten conservative, aren't you, lolol.

 

You earned it, and may lose it; they earned nothing, and get something. Such is the logic of America today. It is obvious, that we older people have done something seriously wrong raising our children, because they think because we gave them everything we could, the rest of America owes them something too.

You're right about the logic of America today, but look which political party started and expanded it. And way you want to criticize Obama's proposal, he's only picking up where they left off, including the "hero" of conservative America, who himself expanded the hell out of EITC as part of his original tax cut.

[NickF1011]

Well then, let's discuss what is fair for government to do with YOUR money!!!!!

 

Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income to taxes. No exceptions. None. That's my definition of "fair".

[napfirst]

Pure socialism!

 

Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.

 

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

 

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

 

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."[/b]

[Ron W.]

Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income to taxes. No exceptions. None. That's my definition of "fair".

 

 

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

[NickF1011]

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

 

:yup:

[RaZor]

One thing that we must remember is that there are indeed '

' people in the world, and they deserve to be paid enormous sums of money. After all, their value to the our society and the human race is great.

 

How in the hell can one even compare their importance (and financial reward) to our society to the guy the guy that is up at 6am and goes about working doing those 'dirty jobs' that must be done by someone.

 

The time has come in America where there cannot be division amongst our populace even though there is much evidence to the contrary. The common American people, meaning those who do not have hundreds of thousands of dollars of income every year, are struggling to make it by, being criticized every day by corporate leaders, while those corporate leaders are doing less work than the same people that they chastise.

 

Our leaders in governments around the nation and world are turning a blind eye to problems, being extremely apathetic to the needs and wants of their constituencies. The trickle down ideology of the past three decades indeed had an objective and we have achieved it. There is only one problem – and it has exposed the short-sightedness of such a policy/idea – the people that MAKE our economy grow legitimately are the ones that have had their legs cut out from under them. Why? So that the wealthy can reward themselves and their friends with even greater wealth.

 

During the first five years of the Bush administration, there were 893,000 jobs created - a gain that is due solely to the 917,000 jobs created in the government sector that offset the 24,000 jobs lost in the private sector. Since the Great Depression, no other president who served at least 52 months has overseen a net loss in private sector jobs through this point. Now if one has a memory, one would remember all of those promises/rhetoric of conservative Bush on how he was going to make government smaller (government is bad), reduce taxes, bring our country together, blah, blah blah.

 

So here we are in 2008, finally be forced to start paying the price for the falsely named set of economic policies once labeled "economic deregulation" that became the national political creed with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. We shifted the tax burden to those least able to bear the strain by raising taxes on both the poor and the middle class. We cut dramatically the tax burden of the wealthy and even more so for the Super Wealthy. We encouraged paper financial profits over real economic growth. We exported our industrial base weakening our nation because it temporarily profited our economic elite.

 

In addition to lack of job growth, real weekly and hourly wages have declined since the start of this era. At a time when middle-class Americans are experiencing stagnant wages and vanishing benefits, CEO pay continues to rise.

 

And yet, there are many naïve Americans (some here on BON) that believe that they are probably deserving their ridiculous remuneration. All the while, many of those corporate leaders work hand in hand with the leaders in governments to get the most work out of the common person while paying them the least that they can, being extremely greedy unto the point of criminality. American leaders are sending our jobs to foreign nations, allowing the deconstruction of the American working class. Then they lie to us, saying that goods are cheaper because of the cheap foreign labor and production materials. The real reason that American production jobs are sent overseas is because many corporations want excessive profits.

 

Yes, even in a free market, there is a such thing as an "excessive profit". When a company is making millions per year, but decides to close their American operation in search of cheaper labor overseas so that they can make even more millions/billions, it becomes treasonous and criminal. Automatic machines can be designed and made to assemble computer motherboards and all sorts of intricate devices, but apparently cannot be made to assemble the parts of a Barbie doll, or a myriad of consumer products. No, that would cost money – that would require investment. It is cheaper to just have them made in China. If jobs were kept in America, prices of goods may increase some, but inflation would not occur in high levels if corporate leaders and owners stopped being greedy and paid their employees a living American wage where the common American could be prosperous and achieve the American Dream and me thinks that we would not be experiencing the rapidly expanding polarization of America with a rapidly disappearing middle class that a capitalistic society requires to be sustained.

 

Funny, isn't it, how communist China realizes that the expansion/growth of their middle class is imperative to their growth as a nation . . . while leaders in this country have spent the last three decades doing everything they can to destroy ours. Does anyone remember just last year when McCain told people (in a Michigan town hall meeting) that yes, it is sad that their jobs have gone away (and are not coming back), but we are moving to a service economy? During 2006 , the economy lost 60,000 private supervisory jobs, 48,000 manufacturing jobs, 65,000 jobs in nondurable goods (mainly textiles, apparel, paper and paper products), and 25,000 jobs in air transportation but during that time, the economy gained 203,000 jobs for waitresses and bartenders. We won't even go into the jobs lost in the last two years.

 

Oh, but we do have those '

' people- and they deserve our welfare - not those common folks that do our 'dirty jobs' for meager wages. Me thinks it is indeed time for 'change' - and I do not trust anyone who just says "I know how to bring it <change> about because I am a maverick," or, "I can lead this country in a new direction", or, "I am a fighter", or a never ending repertoire of coined (stay on message) phrases -- and yet who has an undeniable record of being the deregulator that brought us these '

' people and favoring redistribution of the wealth of our country to those who already have it.

 

Sorry, I cannot trust someone that has to reinvent himself every week - times are far to critical now. . . we are talking survival of our society. I say bring back the chain gangs for those '

' people. Wouldn't that be a sight to see?

[RangerM]

To RangerM and Napfirst, yes, a person is worth whatever someone is willing to pay them. I don't dispute that. In pure, rationalistic, legalistic, market terms, that is true. What I have a problem with is that, since the 80s we have lost all sense of DECENCY. In case you didn't notice it, let me emphasize I said DECENCY. We have accepted a false morality that says as long as something is legal, it is ipso facto ethical. That is a patent falsehood. It assumes that you can come up with a law to deal with every form of human vice (like greed, avarice, cupidity, rapacity, callousness, cruelty), which is not true. It removes the control of social mores that traditional societies imposed. It removes any sense of when too much is too much. It removes all shame in greed and gluttony. It takes the burden off of people to police themselves and control their base desires, and puts it on the law. "I'm not to blame. I did nothing illegal." It reduces people to an abject legalism that is the most blatant subversion of traditional values, yet ironically so-called conservatives have absolutely nothing to say about it. You only mount apologies for these guys and their indecent levels of greed and callousness. You tell us it will trickle down, when you certainly know better by now. Three decades of Reaganomics accompanied by an ever-widening wealth gap have thoroughly proved that trickle-down has failed to live up to the promises on which it was sold to the American people.

 

Let me just say I am in total agreement with you and your view in this matter. That which is legal is often not moral. Where we differ is what to do about it.

 

I find it extremely distasteful that a company would pay a CEO that much money, but I am not prepared to prevent a willing company from paying a CEO what they want. I am not prepared to pass laws that would eliminate a company from being stupid, or force a certain "economic morality" on them.

 

Is it right for a company to pay a CEO millions? If I am not a shareholder, then I don't have a say, nor should I. If shareholders wish to invest their money in one man or woman, let them do it in freedom.

 

There are 7 deadly sins: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride.

 

Is Greed the most evil? And whose definition of Greed are we using? Given that many Liberals ridicule my Christian beliefs, please give me one good reason why I should trust their definition of what Greed is. Many here have said there is no God. If there is no God, there is no sin, and therefore Greed is a survival-of-the-fittest mechanism, and is not immoral.

 

It seems to me that Gluttony and Sloth are the biggest reasons our societal health suffers, and likely contributes to the high costs of our healthcare system. Aren't we enabling it if we get the Government to pay for it?

 

Envy is a large portion of why many feel that they must "Keep up with the Joneses" and Envy has contributed to many persons having so much 'stuff' (including debt) and so little savings. How do we change peoples' attitudes about that? Taxing more of our earnings only hurts those that are responsible with their money.

 

I don't know how many Pride parades I've seen, but when I see a guy in ass-less chaps walking down the street, I can't help but feel a revulsion to his Lust-ful ways. Does this help the "moral fiber" of the country when such outrageous behavior is tolerated in public?

 

As far as Wrath, all you need to do is read many of these threads.

 

You may vote to legislate an economic morality, but I would only ask, are there any other sins you may be forgetting?

Edited October 15, 2008 by RangerM

[retro-man]

Let me just say I am in total agreement with you and your view in this matter. That which is legal is often not moral. Where we differ is what to do about it.

 

I find it extremely distasteful that a company would pay a CEO that much money, but I am not prepared to prevent a willing company from paying a CEO what they want. I am not prepared to pass laws that would eliminate a company from being stupid, or force a certain "economic morality" on them.

 

Is it right for a company to pay a CEO millions? If I am not a shareholder, then I don't have a say, nor should I. If shareholders wish to invest their money in one man or woman, let them do it in freedom.

 

There are 7 deadly sins: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride.

 

Is Greed the most evil? And whose definition of Greed are we using? Given that many Liberals ridicule my Christian beliefs, please give me one good reason why I should trust their definition of what Greed is. Many here have said there is no God. If there is no God, there is no sin, and therefore Greed is a survival-of-the-fittest mechanism, and is not immoral.

 

It seems to me that Gluttony and Sloth are the biggest reasons our societal health suffers, and likely contributes to the high costs of our healthcare system. Aren't we enabling it if we get the Government to pay for it?

 

Envy is a large portion of why many feel that they must "Keep up with the Joneses" and Envy has contributed to many persons having so much 'stuff' (including debt) and so little savings. How do we change peoples' attitudes about that? Taxing more of our earnings only hurts those that are responsible with their money.

 

I don't know how many Pride parades I've seen, but when I see a guy in ass-less chaps walking down the street, I can't help but feel a revulsion to his Lust-ful ways. Does this help the "moral fiber" of the country when such outrageous behavior is tolerated in public?

 

As far as Wrath, all you need to do is read many of these threads.

 

You may vote to legislate an economic morality, but I would only ask, are there any other sins you may be forgetting?

Ranger,

Thank you! I agree with everything you have said here (!) - and it does us good to look at all these things. As I'm sure many will in the months to come.

 

One of the things that has pained me since the 80s, is a perceived sense that people who work hard and play by the rules are schmucks. I see people struggling to get by on a low or minimum wage worth about half what it was 40 years ago blamed for not being more ambitious. I see unions under attack, health and pension benefits being eroded. In general - a total devaluation (social devaluation as well as monetary devaluation) of work. Work is no longer seen as dignified. It is seen as the province of losers, whereas people who are sophisticated and learn how to game the system (there hasn't been a system invented yet that can't be gamed) are seen as smart and admirable. The necessary but - let's face it - largely parasitic activity of the financial sector is rewarded beyond all proportion to its contribution to the general well being. I see a total perversion of the ethic of personal responsibility. I will say this about money: we place it on what we value - and clearly as a society we have not been valuing real productive work.

 

No laws will fix this - but I hope, after this is over, the luster will be permanently off Wall Street and our more widely held social values will go back to something a little more ...... virtuous.

Edited October 15, 2008 by retro-man

[retro-man]

Robert Reich's column this morning said what I have been saying for a long long time about the direction of our economy. Please read it, and the first several comments following it - especially the first one, which deals with our attitude toward trade, which I also agree with.

Link

 

the way to make sure Americans don't live beyond their means is to give them back the means

[mettech]

Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income to taxes. No exceptions. None. That's my definition of "fair".

 

+1

[Imawhosure]

+1

 

 

I agree!!!!!!! But that is how they split us, lolol. Anyone will vote for free things, as long as they can get YOU to foot the bill. If everyones taxes moved in unison up or down, liberals would lose every election unless there was a pressing need they could prove to 51% of the population for them to raise taxes.

 

(sigh) Which is exactly why there will never be (at least not in the forseeable future) an EQUAL PERCENTAGE TAX PROGRAM put in place. Hell, I think all of us are even willing to let very low income earners pay NO TAX. What we complain about, is that they not only pay NO TAX, but get a large refund of money they never payed in to start with.

 

QUESTION 1------------->If we run a deficit, who is more responsible for it.................1. The people who pay more taxes into the system then they get back at the end of the year.............or 2. the people who get way more money back, then they ever payed in the first place?

 

Back when this country wasn't PC, when you got in trouble, you went to a charity and they helped you. This was funded by (gasp) rich people for the most part, with small contributions by the middle class. The problem was, there was no rules for them to DENY you if you were not TRYING TO HELP YOURSELF.

 

Now we have DADDY GOVERNMENT. There are RULES that you are DISCRIMINATING against this or that if you cut them off, lolol.

 

QUESTION 2------------->How many of YOU know someone who has children and didn't name(actually refused to, but 1/2 dozen of one, six of the other, but hey, who's counting) the father on the birth certificate??? Do they get assistance, lololol. Like I said, DADDY GOVERNMENT, and you MEN wonder why you continually get the shaft.

 

Hey, there is a NEW stud in town, and it is called GOVERNMENT, hehehehehehehe. The only difference in this STUD over others is----------------->he is going to stick YOU and the hard working women of America together. All in the name of being PC. Congratulations!!!!!!!! Next time a woman tells you how you have no idea what it is like to get screwed, you can with a reasonably straight face tell her you damn well know how it feels, hehehehehehehe, and you won't be shading the truth in the least.