posted 01-24-2003 04:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoopySanchez:

Given the current law, as an only child of two aging, middle class parents who pinched pennies their entire life, I will give roughly half of my inheritance (which has already been taxed at least once) to the government when they pass away.

---

Without Medicare and Social Security, a lot of aging middle class people who pinched pennies their whole life would have to use up all of their life savings in order to survive after retirement (if they could even survive), and then their offspring would get no inheritance at all. Or the offspring might have to use some of their own income in order to keep their aging parents out of extreme poverty.

posted 01-24-2003 11:53 PM               

Also I wish I was working at a company with a nice, safe government contract. Ahh If that were only possible, even for some people in this country, people who describe people that Marx would laugh at as "Liberals", it would be a paradise!

Our parents generation spent their pensions, and your children's and theirs in the 70's and 80's much more on Arms than welfare. Who knows who we are putting into debt? Cutting taxes with more than a trillion dollars in public debt is lunacy. Where is that quote, Loopy quote about people voting themselves money?

Privatizing social security, Oh yeah its guaranteed to be run better. Why don't we deregulate energy while were at it. Oops we did already. Maybe the board from Enron could run Medicaid. They need jobs. Some things can't be run privately.

Everyone is somewhat conservative, everyone is somewhat "liberal". What I don't see from people using these terms is pragmatism or common sense.

"Trickle down economics"
"The great society"

Horses*** code words for "lets bribe our constituancy".

posted 01-25-2003 12:41 AM               

Regardless of that, most of the planned tax cuts haven't taken place anyway--Blaming the current economy on what little refunds have actually been handed out would be like saying that one straw broke the camel's back.

posted 01-25-2003 12:52 AM               

Originally posted by daved:
Hey Loopy,
Yea, it sounds like those folks of which you speak in Huntsville are wacko, indeed. I've never heard of that outside some communes in the sixties.
People have been paying taxes for thousands of years. It costs money to govern people. I suppose the alternative would be to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and the Defense Department, 'cause thats what the bulk of your taxes are supporting.
---------------------------------------------
Social Security is doing a fine job of eliminating itself. If we let every worker keep 15% of their salary (that's basically what goes into SS, when you consider the employer's not matching the 7.5% out of the goodness of his own heart), and put it in even the lowest yeilding FDIC insured savings account, they could spend their own money taking care of themselves, rather than letting the government keep it if they die prematurely to pay a few meager benefits back to the next generation down the line in the grand Ponzie scheme.
---------------------------------------------
Of course then all those retired senior citizens who did not accumulate massive wealth would be out in the cold streets, especially when their health fails (as it always does when you get older).
---------------------------------------------
Jeeez, talk about your talking points!
If all those seniors are about to freeze to death in the streets, wouldn't it make sense to let them keep a little bit of money in their lifetime with which to provide for their own retirement, and have a fund that's targeted at helping those seniors who need assistance? And perhaps if we let their children keep a little bit more of their money over a lifetime, they could help out when mom & pop reach retirement age, too. Does a dollar somehow buy more health care when it passes through the government's hands first?
---------------------------------------------
It's probably cheaper to have society pay collectively rather than you be responsible for your parents living expenses and medical expenses. There wouldn't be Medicare to pay the bills, so they/you'd be stuck with the $20,000 hospital bill (remember, it's very difficult for seniors to obtain private health care).
---------------------------------------------
Over the 20 years prior to Medicare, the cost of an average hospital stay increased 300%. (My goodness, that's awful! Thank God Medicare came along to save us!) Oh, I forgot to mention, over the next 20 years after Medicare came into existance, the average cost of a hospital stay increased EIGHT HUNDRED PERCENT! (800%). Why? Because when the government's picking up a chunk of the bill, the bill magically goes up for no reason other than they know that there's an endless stream of money to pay it.
---------------------------------------------

posted 01-25-2003 12:58 AM               

Originally posted by Daved:

posted 01-25-2003 01:01 AM               

Originally posted by Daved:

and the seniors to go without Social Security and Medicare so that you could keep a little bit more of your money.
---------------------------------------------
I'm not greedy--If I was, I'd find a job that paid more but took all my time so I couldn't chat on this forum all the time --But the fact is, They're going to be going without SS & Medicare in another 20 years anyway. But the math's already been done--It's either going to be much higher payroll taxes or decreased services. I just think it might be nice to see what happens if we cut out the middle man and let people take responsibility for their own families--And uses the government as a backup plan in the event that a family can't pay for its own health care. Or maybe we should switch to completely socialized medicine, which over time ineveitably turns into a two-tiered system in which cash will buy you good service and your government health care card will buy you a spot on a year long waiting list while your cancer spreads to the point that treatment is pointless. (That speaking in generalities looked fun, Dave, so I thought I'd try it too )
---------------------------------------------
Paying taxes -I came to terms with it when I was sixteen and got my first paycheck. It's just a fact of life, I'm not consumed by it.
---------------------------------------------
I'm not consumed by it either. But about half my money is, by government in all its various forms...
---------------------------------------------
So outside of paying taxes, how does the federal government impose an undue burden on you?
---------------------------------------------
Me personally, there's not much else I can currently complain about besides that (and the peanut gallery breathes a huge sigh of relief . Well, maybe the fact that an government education system has failed to educate kids for an entire generation, yet the government's answer seems to be to feed more money into the same broken system. Or that big business and unions buy every election and leave me and my piddly little vote to choose between the lesser of two evils...That's all I can think of right this minute... But I'm sure that anybody that's tried to open a new business and had to go through a few dozen levels of redundant bureaucracy could tell you. I'm sure that any farmer whose had his land ruled unsuitable for farming because a mudpuddle on the back-40 qualifies as an "environmental wetland" could tell you. I'm sure that the disabled welfare recipient who sees 71 cents out of every dollar intended to get them back on their feet get eaten up by middlemen on the way to their mailbox could tell you.
I'm sure that anybody who's served a longer mandatory sentence for hooking up a narc with a guy selling hits of acid at a Dead show than is served by somebody who attempts murder, they could tell you.

I honestly don't want anyone to have to do without life's necessities. But the current system doesn't work. Both parties are to blame. One party wants to throw a lot more money at it, one party wants to throw a little more money at it. I don't believe in either of them. I want to throw money in a new direction that makes more sense. But I think the whole thing might be too far gone...

posted 01-25-2003 01:04 AM               

Peace to all ya'll!

Don

posted 01-25-2003 08:22 AM            

I'm sure that the disabled welfare recipient who sees 71 cents out of every dollar intended to get them back on their feet get eaten up by middlemen on the way to their mailbox could tell you.

I lived for a few years on SSI disability payments. I can tell you from my own experience, when people start agitating for "smaller government" it's the end recipient who starts sweating about whether or not he or she is going to be able to survive, not the middlemen (and women). And it's the end recipient whose benefits always get cut.

A lot of your last post, I don't disagree with though. You old moderate, you.

posted 01-25-2003 09:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoopySanchez:
Rob, the quote you mentioned is one by Alexander Tyler, who was referring to the Athenian democracy. It basically said that once the population realizes it can elect people who will take taxes from a minority of the population (who pay a majority of the taxes) and give out goodies to those bearing little or no tax burden, the democracy will collapse under the fiscal strain of such nonsense and be followed by some form of dictatorship. In other words, I don't think he was talking about tax cuts.

Regardless of that, most of the planned tax cuts haven't taken place anyway--Blaming the current economy on what little refunds have actually been handed out would be like saying that one straw broke the camel's back.

[This message has been edited by LoopySanchez (edited 01-25-2003).]

---

Oh come On! how soon you forget the $300.00 check you received a little before the start of the downturn. Also you are paraphrasing the quote, incorrectly, I believe. The problem is people voting themselves goodies from the treasury or others bribing their way to the same largess, without any concern for who pays for it.

posted 01-25-2003 09:42 AM               

Now, welfare, medicaid, Free drugs, grants, Earned Income credit...those are goodies, cuz someone ELSE is paying for it.

This "someone has to pay for it"...is plan crap. This assumes, its GOVT's money, not yours to begin with. That govt giving you YOUR OWN MONEY, is a cost to them. People NEVER ask "How are you gonna pay your TAXES?". They don't concern themeselves with YOUR costs...and taxes are a HUGE cost for people...how are WE supposed to pay for it? Only when GOVT. doesn't get to take as much FROM YOU, do they concern themeselves with "how are we gonna pay for it"...we are already paying for it, it's our money.

Worry about us a little more, and govt a little less. Govt doesn't need more money...we do.

posted 01-25-2003 09:50 AM               

I'm sure that the disabled welfare recipient who sees 71 cents out of every dollar intended to get them back on their feet get eaten up by middlemen on the way to their mailbox could tell you.

In the private sector health insurance 76 % is eaten by mddlemen.

Also presently in the US there is a four tiered system. The very rich who get the best of care, the insured who deal with HMO's (with their 76% admin costs), Medicaid recipients who get a much lower standard of care, and the uninsured, whose choice only option is to spend themselves into poverty so that they can go on welfare.

posted 01-25-2003 11:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ethel the Monkey:
So, SouthernFried, how do you feel about corporate welfare, farm subsidies, and things like the $30 [b]BILLION dollars the US government is proposing to give to Israel, Turkey, and Jordan in exchange for their compliance if the US wages war on Iraq?[/B]

---

I am against any welfare...corporate or social. I'm generally against foreign aid, unless it has some serious strings attached. You don't back us, you start bad mouthing us...fine, don't expect us to give you money for it.

There may be a very few real cases, where social welfare may be needed. The truely infirmed (missing both legs, the truely mentally retarded, etc), handicapped veterans and the like. That probably accounts for 10% of our social spending now...the rest, end it. People who are not truely physically infirmed, can rely on their neighbors, churches for charity. I don't like people who rely on govt for charity. If you can't ask your neighbors/family/local support organizations for help, don't demand govt force others to to do it.

Don't remember the last time someone on welfare, actually thanked anybody for those gifts. For the most part, people who get these gifts, "expect" them, and cry if they're not there. That is not what America is about. It's about helping yourself, helping your neighbors...not demanding others be forced to help you. America is by far, the most charitable people in the world. Even with all our taxes, no other countries people give as much towards charities as we do. Demands for more sorta unsettle my stomach.

SF