Its interesting to see people like okie who seems to think the middle class and the poor are doing well in our economy - even while more Americans lose their health insurance and more of the middle class fall into poverty. Their defense of Bush knows no common sense or logic^} just party politics as usual.
cicerone imposter wrote:Its interesting to see people like okie who seems to think the middle class and the poor are doing well in our economy - even while more Americans lose their health insurance and more of the middle class fall into poverty. Their defense of Bush knows no common sense or logic^} just party politics as usual.
Interesting, nah it's boreing, sadly, it's the way thing are and are going to be for quite some time.
I hate to say it but our economy is about as strong as a house of cards.
and whats even worse it seems to be done by more design than accident.
cicerone imposter wrote:Its interesting to see people like okie who seems to think the middle class and the poor are doing well in our economy - even while more Americans lose their health insurance and more of the middle class fall into poverty. Their defense of Bush knows no common sense or logic^} just party politics as usual.
Can you provide a quote, imposter?
Found this blog on another board.
Lots of reading here.
http://nychousingbubble.blogspot.com/
The bubbles always burst.. Theyre designed to burst from the outset.
okie wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Its interesting to see people like okie who seems to think the middle class and the poor are doing well in our economy - even while more Americans lose their health insurance and more of the middle class fall into poverty. Their defense of Bush knows no common sense or logic^} just party politics as usual.
Can you provide a quote, imposter?
Imposter, we can debate issues all day fair and square, I am fine with that, but when you mis-represent what I think, I take issue with that. That is why I asked if you could quote me where I said the poor was doing well in our economy.
So, you tell us what you meant when you said -
Quote:LockeD, I don't know whether you realize it or not, but we are already doing quite abit of what you are advocating. It is called re-distribution of wealth. If you carry it to the extreme, it is called communism, which has never been successful where tried.
One point about your example of a family making 25,000. With a family of four, such a person pays no income tax whatsoever, and with Bush's tax cuts, the family receives thousands back, in fact I think roughly 3 or 4 thousand more than they even paid in. It is now becoming the case that close to 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax whatsoever. Rich people pay the vast majority of all income tax.
What did you mean when you said this? You weren't complaining about this situation, or implying that it somehow wasn't fair for anyone involved?
Cycloptichorn
okie wrote :
Quote:LockeD, I don't know whether you realize it or not, but we are already doing quite abit of what you are advocating. It is called re-distribution of wealth. If you carry it to the extreme, it is called communism, which has never been successful where tried.
i sure hope that the redistribution of wealth in the united states of america still meets with okie's approval .
hbg
Cycloptichorn wrote:So, you tell us what you meant when you said -
Quote:LockeD, I don't know whether you realize it or not, but we are already doing quite abit of what you are advocating. It is called re-distribution of wealth. If you carry it to the extreme, it is called communism, which has never been successful where tried.
One point about your example of a family making 25,000. With a family of four, such a person pays no income tax whatsoever, and with Bush's tax cuts, the family receives thousands back, in fact I think roughly 3 or 4 thousand more than they even paid in. It is now becoming the case that close to 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax whatsoever. Rich people pay the vast majority of all income tax.
What did you mean when you said this? You weren't complaining about this situation, or implying that it somehow wasn't fair for anyone involved?
Cycloptichorn
I meant what I said. LockeD was seeming to imply that what is already being done should be done. I simply pointed out that Bush's tax plans already are giving low income wage earners big breaks in the form of income tax, to the point that they receive more money back than paid in. I would not change this. I think it is a big economic boost for low income folks. I am simply giving Bush credit for already doing what you guys are complaining about constantly. Instead of criticism, how about complimenting someone for a change? Bush's tax breaks have done more than your Democratic friends have done in this regard, and they claim to care about the poor.
Constant whining and complaining. It becomes tiresome.
To be clear, I am in favor of giving tax breaks to low income earners, in other words some re-distribution of wealth, however the posts I read here seem to ponder how wonderful it would be to take this approach to a much higher level. People can sit around and wish they were making as much money as other people, but I don't think such a mindset is very productive, and frankly I get tired of hearing it. There are great opportunities in this country if you have enough energy and gumption to work, be responsible, and all the rest. Quit worrying about getting rich, instead worry about doing something you enjoy, be responsible, live within your means, and the money will take care of itself. I have seen this happen virtually every time it is tried.
Quote:I think it is a big economic boost for low income folks.
Let me ask you - do you have any stats, or evidence, on just how much money the 'low-income' folks saved from any of Bush's tax breaks? Especially as compared to the high-income folks?
Or is this all just conjecture on your part. I'll be honest - I do have the data, and the ability to make your argument look pretty dumb. But I thought I'd give you the chance to explain yourself first.
Quote:
Constant whining and complaining. It becomes tiresome.
So? Don't respond to the posts, then. But I won't let you get away with posting inaccuracies as if they were truths. Ever.
Cycloptichorn
I don't know what stats you have, but I personally know folks that earn less than 25,000 and I know approximately how much money they paid in and got back. I also cranked it into a tax program, experimentally, so I know it is significant. I also know what they bought with the money so the positive economic spinoffs of such breaks are self evident.
I would need to verify it, but I am fairly sure the earned income credit and child tax credits for low income wage earners have been more under Bush's tax cuts. Do you disagree with that?
okie wrote:I don't know what stats you have, but I personally know folks that earn less than 25,000 and I know approximately how much money they paid in and got back. I also cranked it into a tax program, experimentally, so I know it is significant. I also know what they bought with the money so the positive economic spinoffs of such breaks are self evident.
I would need to verify it, but I am fairly sure the earned income credit and child tax credits for low income wage earners have been more under Bush's tax cuts. Do you disagree with that?
Ah,
anecdotal evidence. Wonderful stuff, that. Supports the argument each and every time.
The low income wage earners get back a
little more than they used to. That's about it. The upper income wage earners, in terms of both percentages and actual numbers, get back far, far, far more thanks to Bush. That's called
regressive taxation.
You originally claimed that
Quote:It is now becoming the case that close to 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax whatsoever. Rich people pay the vast majority of all income tax.
And that's true. But it isn't because taxes have been cut significantly on the lower classes. It's because the rich have all the money, and the more they get, the higher amounts of taxes get paid overall - even if you lower their tax bracket rates from their previous amounts. But you are looking at it backwards, as if someone is getting a break on the lower end. Not really.
Do you honestly believe that a family of four can make in on 25k, Okie? These days?
Cycloptichorn
Yes, I see people doing it, and living comfortably, on $25,000. They don't live in New York or San Francisco. They don't live like Al Gore. They are happy and do not lack for food and clothing. They shop at Goodwill, not Macys. And they aren't complaining as much as your are. They complain some, but they still have all the amenities they need, and they are looking for ways to improve their situation, and they likely will.
They receive anywhere from 4 to $6,000 back each tax year, and they buy another better used car, carpet, and other things they want and need. You might think that is a "little more." Maybe to you and Al Gore, thats all it is, but some people think it is quite a bit of money.
I would need to double check the history, but I believe taxes have been cut significantly for low incomes, at least I remember no big tax breaks like that when I made the equivalent of that in todays dollars many years ago, nothing close to it, cyclops. If you can prove otherwise, I am willing to give it a look.
Also if you want to claim rich people get more dollars back under the tax breaks, well duh, do you expect a $25,000 earner to receive $100,000 if the neighbor that earns 10 million pays $100,000 less in taxes?
Back...
Well, this forum has gotten slightly ugly since yesterday. I see you two are carrying the torches quite ferbently. I was called Bellicose in one of the forums and that was fun, however I'm back to putting my idealistic views into the flow of things here again.
See what okie isn't seeing. Is the acutal benifits America could accumilate by using a progressive stance on the lower class. Instead of the recessive stance held my most contries; America less, however, still included in this stance. If they put the money the government has access to more to the educational system instead of thier pockets maybe this country would move forward in the technological aspect like the Japanise. They take thier schooling more seriously than we do. How many of you have gone to school with an exchange student from Japan? I can tell you one thing, they are better at math, grammer (in our language), science, and pretty much any elective they join, they are the stars. The question is Why? Why do we allow others to take this stance and for thier children to make mock of our adult's intelligence? When a kid can do equasions with multible unknown variables in thier head and half of America takes twenty minutes and still have to write it down to do it, that's sad. It's not because they evolved more smart than we are, it's because thier schools are ran way diffrently: They are not just expected to learn, but to be challenged. They are not just expected to be challenged, but to overcome challenge.
Schooling should not be lax, as it is here, we hold our kids to a higher displinary standard than learning standard. Improve the schools, Make going to college optional to anyone, not just those willing to go into dept, make it free. It's Knowlege not product, it should not be sold, but given to those who aspire to learn.
Once this is accomplished in this country we can start moving foreward in the world as the nation of intelligents. Those crazy coo's with ideals that are so far off the wall that it's nuts, will have a chance to get the education to try thier ideals! We might come up with such a mind blowing technolegy that all the other countries would be in Dept to us, because we had the technolegy that they, Had to have. Instead of the other way around. We've been riding smoothly through this era, no real ambition anywhere, rich or poor, doesn't matter, no one is aspiring to do the impossible anymore. Remember when America was known as the biggest industral powerhouse in the world? No one looks at us like that anymore, what are we producing now days? Faster airplanes? Safer car features? GPS? Faster computers? Safer space travel? This was a while back, and the only one we keep improving steadily is computers. We could be inventing a way to renew oxygen in a space ship, we could be inventing faster space travel, and a way humans can withstand the effects of it. Larger space ships and stations so that when we finnally reach a planet with life support we can start expanding our foot hold on the universe and not just the world. Earth is getting crowded people, at a potential rate.
Think about your grand children, or great grand children. My father, who's 74 right now has great grand children right now, but what I'm talking about is 3 or 4 generations ahead. Will the solution to gobal warming, hunger, and living space fall into our laps? No, so how about being progressive instead of regressive and allowing everyone a chance to get the education they need to attribute something good or decient to their world, and while doing it, they can live comfortibly with the wages they get with thier new education.
LockeD, we can agree on one thing, education needs improving. We may differ somewhat on why, but I agree with you on that. As to making college free, it used to be almost free in a state supported school for residents of that state. Not free, but certainly very affordable, but of course you needed to pay for housing and all that if you did not live at home.
I don't know the cost of tuition these days, what would it be? I'm not talking about Harvard. How about the state universitis in the state where you live?
Thanx
Thank you, Cycloptichorn your prompt ability to access satistics and information has yet again amazed me. I'm greatful. Would have taken me an hour or two to do that research. Though I knew, that it was in the 26k range, I don't think that's the end of what you have to pay either, that's for one period correct? Semester or year? When a true education in a field of choice could last up to seven years? I don't know, jeeze when I looked at it, it was 2 years ago, and at that time I was astounded and simply put myself in a group called: can't afford that, through loans or other means. Sure the millitary will put you through, but some don't wish to risk thier life in the persuit of knowlege expecially when their taste of Knowlege in school was so dim and hardly what they deserved, but that was free. I studied outside of school as well as within, I know how great knowlege is and how wonderful it feels to know something, but with the way the schools are in this country, not many aspire to be scholars.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Ask, receive.
Quote:On March 15, the UC Board of Regents approved student fees for the 2007-2008 academic year. Based on its decisions, we expect total fees for Boalt students to rise by $1,258 (5%) to $26,729 for residents and by $1,127 (3%) to $37,721 for nonresidents.
Cycloptichorn
BTW, okie, college tuition is now considerably more expensive than what you call an okay salary for a family of four.
Cycloptichorn
The
State University of New York tution is $4,350 for state residents. They expect a total cost of $16,880 after room and board, fees, books and expenses.
