Senate Fiscal Cliff Bill Approved by House

[pbear19]

This kind of discussion, and the idea that the poor should pay more and the wealthy should pay less, always reminds me of this:

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."

"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.

"It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As Vito pointed out, no, he can't. Congress, not the president, controls spending.

Under every Congress there are stories of the President being forced to fund programs that he doesn't support. In some aspects I think this can be a good thing, within reason of course. I also support the concept of a line-item veto, which I think can do a lot to reduce the use of riders. *shrugs* I'm also possibly in a minority in thinking that we should transition to a parliamentary republic. (Actually I would even support a constitution monarchy on the slightly older British model.)

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I never said you'd be working for free.. but where's the incentive to work twice as hard if you're not being compensated accordingly?

This is the fundamental difference, I think, in the world views on this thread. The idea that working hard leads to high pay. That just isn't true for huge swaths of this country.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I agree with you on the tax breaks for NOT farming. I do think that you need to provide deductions for kids and home mortgage interest. $250,000.00 for a single person is very different than $250,000.00 for a family of 4. If you eliminate kids, then are you eliminating spouses who are not working also? Why would you NOT use household income per capita and instead only count income per person who is working? That doesn't make sense to me. Additionally, a lot more people would not be able to afford a house if the mortgage interest deductions were eliminated. The housing market is plenty unstable already. We don't need to add to that problem at this point in its very slow recovery.

I don't think the government should be in the business of validating people's choices. Those who choose to have families on incomes of $15K or of $250K make choices. Taxes are paid on income, not on how one chooses to spend it.

Likewise housing. While I believe access to adequate housing is a right, I don't think home ownership is a right, and don't think the government should reward me more than the couple next door who has been renting their house for 35 years, by their choice.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Likewise housing. While I believe access to adequate housing is a right, I don't think home ownership is a right, and don't think the government should reward me more than the couple next door who has been renting their house for 35 years, by their choice.

On principle, I agree, but it would require a very slow phase-out, and CERTAINLY not right now, while the housing market is what it is.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Anyway, life may indeed not be fair, but there can be consequences to taxing those with lower income to the point that they can't pay for essentials.

Is it preferable to have structured rates that encourage more self-sufficiency for those with lower incomes?

Thank you for saying this more clearly and succinctly than I ever could.

Originally Posted by DGTess

I don't think the government should be in the business of validating people's choices. Those who choose to have families on incomes of $15K or of $250K make choices. Taxes are paid on income, not on how one chooses to spend it.

Likewise housing. While I believe access to adequate housing is a right, I don't think home ownership is a right, and don't think the government should reward me more than the couple next door who has been renting their house for 35 years, by their choice.

Is it that person's income? Or the family's income? I have never thought of my income as just mine. That money belongs to me and my children, not just me. I don't think many stay at home moms would be happy to say that the money their husband makes working outside of the home belongs to their spouses. I guess this is a major philosophical difference about you think about a family unit.

Home ownership is a huge boon for our economy. The building, selling and buying of homes creates jobs. All of the people with those jobs then pay taxes. It's all a big flow chart and the taxes paid by all of those people add up to far more than the tax savings of the mortgage interest.

I'm of the mindset that if it is good for society for as a whole, I'm willing to ante up more money to pay for it. That would include education, defense, health care, roads/transportation, medical research, etc. I do feel like there is a lot of waste in our government but I can't put my finger on exactly what it is. We all heard reports of the government paying outrageous amounts for toilet seats, for example. I do think there is too much wealth in this country to tolerate people dying for lack of health insurance, lack of food, lack of heat or shelter... in short, lack of compassion. I know people who work the system and I know people who need help but can't get it from anywhere. I can't even believe they haven't approved spending to help the people suffering damage from Sandy, for example.

I have a feeling the biggest issue is corruption, but where that corruption is, I don't know. And whether ending that corruption would really help the deficit in the long run, I don't know.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Thank you for saying this more clearly and succinctly than I ever could.



Is it that person's income? Or the family's income? I have never thought of my income as just mine. That money belongs to me and my children, not just me. I don't think many stay at home moms would be happy to say that the money their husband makes working outside of the home belongs to their spouses. I guess this is a major philosophical difference about you think about a family unit.

It is family income, no doubt. The wage earner, however, CHOSE to marry and/or have a family. Why should the government validate or reward that choice?

Home ownership is a huge boon for our economy. The building, selling and buying of homes creates jobs. All of the people with those jobs then pay taxes. It's all a big flow chart and the taxes paid by all of those people add up to far more than the tax savings of the mortgage interest.

OK, we disagree.

I have a feeling the biggest issue is corruption, but where that corruption is, I don't know. And whether ending that corruption would really help the deficit in the long run, I don't know.

I don't think it's corruption.

In my 30+ years in government, I've come to believe we could do what needs to be done with 40% fewer people. Here are just some examples why I say 40% - it may be more or less, but ...
- a person full-time from November to January working on Combined Federal Campaign - from each directorate of each agency
- most government employees I saw spend as much time in idle chit-chat as they do working on any given day. Buying a house, selling puppies, (not)selling cookies/candy/giftwrap for the kids (by simply putting out an order sheet, and waiting for coworkers to ask, the more chitchat, all take place on government time.
- Don't like the way another office with which you work does/documents their job? No problem. Just have one of our people do/document it "our way".
- Duplicate information because computer systems can't talk to one another - in the name of "security" (theater) or "privacy".
- And as I said, every person who wants to make his mark must grow his program - whether that means making new regulations to enforce, sticking his nose somewhere else, or any of a gazillion different things ... what gets rewarded gets done.

[AGDee]

I was actually thinking "fraud, waste and abuse", which would encompass those kinds of things you're talking about. Then again, if we lay off 40% of government employees, that's more people getting entitlements. Seems like a vicious cycle that we can't get out of. Cuts in spending always means cuts in jobs too.

[AnchorAlum]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

Not that I want to start an intense debate...but I'd like conversation....

Why are Republicans against higher taxes for the wealthy? I'm sorry, someone who is making 500,000 a year shouldn't be paying the same amount of taxes that I pay at 57,000 a year, because mine are considerably lower. Nor, should someone who is making 500,000 a year be paying LESS than me in taxes.

Don't get me wrong, spending cuts need to be made across the board, but as a teacher I am sooooo beyond tired of the first thing that they cut is to education. Yet, they keep putting all these damn pressures on states and teachers to "excel".

I don't know the budget of the United States and all the departments (and good god, I would probably get a headache looking at it all), but I'm sure there are places that the budget could be cut, but quite honestly I think our senators and representatives are more interested in THEIR bottom line not the country as a whole's bottom line.

I certainly don't make $500K a year, but the simple answer here is that if you're both taxed at say 30%, then the $500K person IS paying more than you are at $57K.

If education is cut, it's at the state and local level, not the Feds.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

You don't have to talk about me like I'm not here and/or stupid. Im realistic about my potential earnings, I know I'll most likely never be in the 1%, and the Republican party hasn't brainwashed me into thinking that I will be one day.

I can think for myself and form an opinion on my own.. just like you.

You don't know how brainwashed you are. You pay taxes now don't you? You don't just sit home and throw up your hands because the government takes out a percentage? If the Bush tax cuts were not renewed, and your rates went up to the original levels, would you do everything you could to reduce your salary so that you could get to the rate level that you were previously at even if it meant you were at a lower take home pay? Probably not. That is what you think the 1% are going to do because of this tax increase. It doesn't make any sense.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

You don't know how brainwashed you are. You pay taxes now don't you? You don't just sit home and throw up your hands because the government takes out a percentage? If the Bush tax cuts were not renewed, and your rates went up to the original levels, would you do everything you could to reduce your salary so that you could get to the rate level that you were previously at even if it meant you were at a lower take home pay? Probably not. That is what you think the 1% are going to do because of this tax increase. It doesn't make any sense.

If you ever run for office, call me. I think I might have a contribution to make toward your campaign.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

If you ever run for office, call me. I think I might have a contribution to make toward your campaign.

LOL. My husband always says he can't ever run for office bc I'd sabotage him.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

LOL. My husband always says he can't ever run for office bc I'd sabotage him.

run in a blue state....he'd be arright.

[adpimiz]

Some quotes I saw the other day that I enjoyed..

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that it does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half get the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

Some quotes I saw the other day that I enjoyed..

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that it does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half get the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Can anyone identify one wealthy person who has been "legislated" "out of prosperity" or one poor person who has been "legislated" "into prosperity"?

And exactly where does the idea that "half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them" come from?

There are so many unfounded assumptions in bumper stiker sloganeering that it makes my head hurt. Yes, sometimes the pithiness can be enjoyed at face value, but too often it can't stand up to any actual examination.