Presidential Candidates

Okay, the consensus is that the poor are destroying America by greedily assimilating all available entitlements.

I respectfully disagree.

You perhaps are confusing the impoverished with the poor. The poor of today who are being crushed under the weight of taxes, mandatory healthcare, excessive regulations, and stigma. The working poor I know are plumbers, nurses, teachers, police officers, electricians, and a littany of other blue collar workers. They earn $30,000-$50,000 a year. They are mostly law abiding, proud, and self reliant people. Not long ago their income was enough to have a good life in America. Enough to buy a house, a decent car, and save a little for retirement. That has slipped away as the cost of living has tripled while income is stagnant.

I know plenty of folks who pay more in income taxes than I take in annual salary. Most of them are self made. I believe that they shouldn't be punished for success. I also believe if they are not intelligent enough to manage their money and shelter themselves from excessive tax burden it's their fault.

The people who are the real problem are the users. Those who have no initiative and blame others for their problems. You don't have to be formerly middle class but now working g poor to be that person. There is fraud rampant at every level of humanity. The wealthy are just generally highly educated and able to get away with it stigma free.

It is possible to be poor and be self reliant and honest. It comes down to the individual.
 
blaster said:
Okay, the consensus is that the poor are destroying America by greedily assimilating all available entitlements.

I respectfully disagree.

You perhaps are confusing the impoverished with the poor. The poor of today who are being crushed under the weight of taxes, mandatory healthcare, excessive regulations, and stigma. The working poor I know are plumbers, nurses, teachers, police officers, electricians, and a littany of other blue collar workers. They earn $30,000-$50,000 a year. They are mostly law abiding, proud, and self reliant people. Not long ago their income was enough to have a good life in America. Enough to buy a house, a decent car, and save a little for retirement. That has slipped away as the cost of living has tripled while income is stagnant.

I know plenty of folks who pay more in income taxes than I take in annual salary. Most of them are self made. I believe that they shouldn't be punished for success. I also believe if they are not intelligent enough to manage their money and shelter themselves from excessive tax burden it's their fault.

The people who are the real problem are the users. Those who have no initiative and blame others for their problems. You don't have to be formerly middle class but now working g poor to be that person. There is fraud rampant at every level of humanity. The wealthy are just generally highly educated and able to get away with it stigma free.

It is possible to be poor and be self reliant and honest. It comes down to the individual.
Click to expand...

I agree 1000%. A couple of my best friends are hard working, blue collar folks. Good people earning the most they can and doing the best they can. They don't make much, never taken a vacation and drive used cars but they're getting crushed by the economy, healthcare and the costs associated with raising kids. Technically poor? Maybe not because they're income is a little above the poverty line. But they are effectively poor because they're slowing getting in over their heads just trying to live.

All of the talk about the so-called blood sucking poor make for good political banter but you can't make broad statements. There are absolutely blood suckers but when you talk about the poor in the political context, you're talking about the impoverished as Blaster said.
 
Woody said:
Some folks have this opinion, 'Anyone who is wealthier than me is a sociopath who lies, cheats and steals to get their ill-gotten gains. Anyone poorer than me is a lazy oaf who suckles at the teat of our bloated welfare state'.
Click to expand...

Got a laugh out of that so there must be an element of truth to it...

"An estimated 45.3% of American households — roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal individual income tax."

Rich people pay 69% of all federal taxes in America

Income level Share of total federal taxes paid
Lowest 20% 0.8%
Second lowest 20% 3.4%
Middle income 9.2%
Second richest 20% 17.5%
Richest 20% 69%

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24

I do not like the choice of words in this article as "rich" would be the accumulation of wealth not a just good earning year. I think it more accurate to call them "high earners".

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...t-enough-to-be-fair/ft_15-03-23_taxesrevenue/

MM
 
Last edited:
When these discussions start I have these thoughts, who are the 47%?, who are the middle class?, who receives the entitlements? So I read, the answers/definitions sometimes vary a little but tend to fall in similar range. This pretty much includes all three of those questions.

entitlements.jpg

By "entitlements," CBPP is including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, children's health insurance, food stamps, school lunch programs, welfare, unemployment insurance, the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit. It does not include a few discretionary programs (like rental assistance or low-income energy subsidies) which are aimed more directly at the poor. Those programs, however, are a lot smaller in comparison.
 
When I saw that chart I wanted to SCREAM Bull5h!tt, Bull5h!tt, Bull5h!tt !!!

Then I read the disclaimer which basically says (by the way this chart is Bull5h!tt. It only includes enough handouts to make it look like things really aren't that bad and not to worry, our government has things in check.).
 
mwph said:
When I saw that chart I wanted to SCREAM Bull5h!tt, Bull5h!tt, Bull5h!tt !!!

Then I read the disclaimer which basically says (by the way this chart is Bull5h!tt. It only includes enough handouts to make it look like things really aren't that bad and not to worry, our government has things in check.).
Click to expand...
Gee, everybody is always complaining about those that are receiving entitlements, these are often zeroed in on, Medicaid, children's health insurance, food stamps, school lunch programs, welfare, unemployment insurance, the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Why do you think this chart makes things look good? That 60% is largely our middle class.:huh:
 
Without reading the disclaimer the chart shows that 58% of the tax payer funded lifestyle is distributed to 60% of the population. This is simply not true. The chart visually gives the impression that the middle class is being helped by the government - hard to argue with that right? The government is helping the middle class right? I'd pay good money to see the chart with ALL the programs represented. But I digress, we will never see that one. Housing, little or no utility bills, phones, internet access, after school programs, free hospital care, prescription programs. You know, the luxuries you & I work for. When do I get to see that chart? How about the blatant abuse of the disability programs that our elected officials turn a blind eye to?

I would not argue or advocate for the total elimination of any of the programs you listed. But when people are allowed and even encouraged to bundle them all together into a comfortable and care free lifestyle......Well, then We've got a problem.

We've got money coming in and money going out. I want to see THAT chart.....Where is Ross Perot when we need him?
 
It's not how much you make, it's how much you keep. Look at this in a straight dollar for dollar economy. My tiny brain can't handle any more today.

Two families of four. One makes $50K per year. One makes $450K per year. The 50 family will live on $37K. The 450 family will live on $260K per year. This is based on 2015 tax rates and are rounded. For the sake of argument, mortgage as a percentage of net is the same. Groceries costs the same. Gasoline costs the same. Healthcare costs the same. All things being equal, statistically, the 50K family will run out of money faster than the $450K family.

the only tax system that is fair is a tax on consumption.
 
mwph said:
Without reading the disclaimer the chart shows that 58% of the tax payer funded lifestyle is distributed to 60% of the population. This is simply not true. The chart visually gives the impression that the middle class is being helped by the government - hard to argue with that right? The government is helping the middle class right? I'd pay good money to see the chart with ALL the programs represented. But I digress, we will never see that one. Housing, little or no utility bills, phones, internet access, after school programs, free hospital care, prescription programs. You know, the luxuries you & I work for. When do I get to see that chart? How about the blatant abuse of the disability programs that our elected officials turn a blind eye to?

I would not argue or advocate for the total elimination of any of the programs you listed. But when people are allowed and even encouraged to bundle them all together into a comfortable and care free lifestyle......Well, then We've got a problem.

We've got money coming in and money going out. I want to see THAT chart.....Where is Ross Perot when we need him?
Click to expand...
It be true. You don't need Ross Perot, you have a computer, everything you want to know is available to you.
 
MonacoMike said:
...And encourage improvement in the debt situation of the people of the country.

MM
Click to expand...


I've been without food. Hunger does wonder for debt management. One need look only as far back as 1965 to find the beginning of this mess. It was never the job of government to do what they are involved in today. Slavery still exists. The owner is different.
 
dpmulvey said:
I've been without food. Hunger does wonder for debt management. One need look only as far back as 1965 to find the beginning of this mess. It was never the job of government to do what they are involved in today. Slavery still exists. The owner is different.
Click to expand...

And the Democrats are still the slave masters.
 
dpmulvey said:
I've been without food. Hunger does wonder for debt management. One need look only as far back as 1965 to find the beginning of this mess. It was never the job of government to do what they are involved in today. Slavery still exists. The owner is different.
Click to expand...
Phew, I was afraid to say it first.:lol:
 
Woody said:
Phew, I was afraid to say it first.:lol:
Click to expand...

I'll go you one better. "A black man's worst enemy is a black man." Yes in quotes. Said to me by George Mitchell. A black garbage truck driver who drove a maroon Lincoln Mark with a white vinyl top and dressed to the nines when not on the truck. He happened to be one of my regulars at the Knights of Columbus where I tended bar during college in the mid '70's. Vietnam winding down, Carter in office, hyper inflation, race riots..... We were watching the news when George made that statement. Then he cashed a check for $500 because he was leaving the next morning for Brazil for a 2 week vacation. He finished his drink and left. It was the first time I'd met the man. Needless to say what went through my formerly jaundiced and bigoted pea brain.

Another regular, in the know and very active in politics looked at me and chuckled. "You think he's just some nigga on a truck didn't you Dave?" Obviously the look was priceless as all the regulars started chuckling. The first guy continued, "That man has a several thousand acres in the midwest he leases out for grazing land and a sheep farm in Nova Scotia. He also has a house up there he uses on occasion and the rest of the time he leases out to snow skiers and summer tourists. You know that big shed in his back yard? (I passed his house daily walking to and from high school). He has more money in ham radio equipment in that shed than you father or I paid for our houses. He built a lot of it himself. He doesn't need to work. It gets him out of the house and provides his health insurance." I said, "Health Insurance?" "Health insurance. His wife died of cancer and were it not for his insurance despite all his money, he would have been wiped out. He wants to be able to leave something for his kids in the event something similar happens to him."

I've never been the same since then.

Some of the most poignant lessons I've had in my life have never required I set foot in a classroom.

I'm not a Trump fan but I hope he wipes the floor with Hillary. I hope the people finally get their voice back. When the republican party "insiders" look at a third party they are as far out of touch with the people as the democrat party. We have a guide book. It's called the Constitution. It's about time we got back to following it.
 
I just wish he had a shot: https://garyjohnson2016.com/issues/

With the small exception of the environment (realizing I'm somewhat of a pot/kettle/black with a boat, but I do a lot to balance that out to leave as small a footprint as possible), I pretty much agree with everything.
 
FastMarkA said:
I just wish he had a shot: https://garyjohnson2016.com/issues/

With the small exception of the environment (realizing I'm somewhat of a pot/kettle/black with a boat, but I do a lot to balance that out to leave as small a footprint as possible), I pretty much agree with everything.
Click to expand...

I have to ask, what in the site statement do you not agree with?


"The environment is a precious gift and needs to be protected. Gov. Johnson believes strongly that the first responsibility of government is to protect citizens from those who would do them harm, whether it be a foreign aggressor, a criminal — or a bad actor who harms the environment upon which we all depend.

Consistent with that responsibility, Gary Johnson believes it is the proper role of government to enforce reasonable environmental protections. He did so as Governor, and would do so as President.

However, Gov. Johnson also believes that it is NOT the proper role of government to engage in social and economic engineering for the purpose of manipulating the energy marketplace or creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market. Such efforts have failed in the past, and are doomed to continue to fail. Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Deciding in Washington, DC, that one source of energy should be subsidized and others penalized is a different matter.

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators and personal choices will ultimately bring about the environmental restoration and protection society desires. Conversely, destroying prosperity and innovation through government intervention will only harm the environment.

When it comes to global climate change, Gov. Johnson believes too many politicians are having the wrong debate. Is the climate changing? Probably so. Is man contributing to that change? Probably so. The important question, however, is whether the government’s efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the marketplace in order to impact that change are cost-effective — or effective at all. Given the realities of global energy and resource use, there is little evidence that the burden being placed on Americans is making a difference that justifies the cost."

MM
 
MonacoMike said:
I have to ask, what in the site statement do you not agree with?
Click to expand...

The scientific community overwhelmingly posits that climate change has been caused by human activity, and looking at the exponential upswing of the planet's temperatures over the past 100 years, it is almost directly proportional to the consumption of fossil fuels. I agree with most of GJ's statement, but I would like to see a more bolder stance towards clean energy adoption (and, at the same time, a path towards helping those workers in "dirty energy" stay employed in clean energy industries).
 
30 years ago the scientific community was in an overwhelming 'consensus' (consensus is now science, I guess) believing we were in a mini-ice age. One of the leaders in that movement is current Science Czar John Holdren. Over the recent years, with the tree ring/hockey stick 'fraud, the NASA/GISS manipulated data and now the more resent, NSIDC manipulated data to prove a junk science theory - all it proves is a lie....sorry, I ain't buyin' what the GOVERNMENT is trying to sell me as a reason for an energy price increase through taxation....

The Earth's climate is cyclical - It always was and will be long after we're gone......
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,118
Messages
1,426,471
Members
61,034
Latest member
Lukerney
Back
Top