The Poorhouse: Aunt Winnie, Glenn Beck, And The Politics Of The New Deal

[UncleBuck]

I can't really understand the rest of what you said honestly.

you would have to learn to speak troll.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

Umm...whatever, we are not talking profit or no profit, we are talking income bracket taxation, in which your story applies precisely 0%

So lets say you have a huge demand all of a sudden for Plutonium for Nuclear Reactors, think the poor people with no money saved up will be able to build a mine to get said plutonium? Perhaps the banks will overlook the fact that you are poor and have little income but are willing to lend a few hundred million to get your plutonium mine going? Demand creates jobs eh? Im pretty sure that employers create jobs and demand creates opportunity for employers to make a profit, without a profit there is no incentive to do anything.

 

[NoDrama]

Umm...whatever, we are not talking profit or no profit, we are talking income bracket taxation, in which your story applies precisely 0%

WTF does income tax bracketing have to do with demand causing employers to hire workers to fill that demand? Your income tax bracket applies precisely less than 0%.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

We are talking about taxation. Profit is profit. If you are a big profit hawk, slash retirement funds, slash health care for your workers. Your scenario only applies to a rare population of businesses whose bottom line is so tight that minor changes in tax rates can be the difference between profitability or not, in which case, your business is probably in a lot of trouble anyway. We are not talking about jacking business taxes up to 90% here buddy, we are talking minor, high class tax hike that yield an enormous quantity of revenue due to their unrealistic wealth value. Plus radioactive mining companies are probably tax exempt, much like 33% of america's business that pay 0% federal taxes. You want to complain about tax rates, first complain about business tax fairness regarding exemptions before you start a diatribe about useless situations that don't exist in reality.

Want to talk small business taxes? Why not ask the president who already passed a small jobs bill, loaded with 30B in credit, and 12B in tax credits. If they provide health care to the employees, they can write off 35% of the premium.

Small Business Jobs Bill ( H.R. 5297) to cut taxes, provide more SBA funding and ease credit [COLOR=#0000FF ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=#0000FF ! important][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR]for small businesses. The legislation would create a $30 billion lending program and provide small businesses with $12 billion in tax breaks, including more generous write-offs for equipment purchases.

But no, this guy must be Hitler. You can't oppose views that you support and expect to be taken seriously, not only in the thread but in real life.

Mark my words: He will be a 2 term president. You can hold me to that. Conservatives simply keep on stirring up their hornets nest to get elected and perform exactly none of what they said to get elected. You can only rely on anger for so long as it is a fleeting emotion. Before long, everyone gets tired of being angry and becomes rational (some longer than others apparently). The far right will thin out again, and the center, which you are not, will be robust and look at things rationally and realize, this wasn't as bad as I thought. Conservatives will be left in office, up for election, in a far right position, desperately trying to run from their neocon roots that were so popular in 2010, and trying to look more and more center. Then it will be libertarian neocons vs. centrist republicans. Votes split, accusations fly, dems win.

You can't get all that you want. I am not a total liberal, I am actually fiscally conservative (when appropriate), but I sacrifice some of my views to get most of them accomplished. Libertarians refuse to sacrifice anything. That is why the party always has been a hard liner joke. Even in Alaska, the new found mecca of libertarianism. I can't wait to see Rand Paul in action. Out of his comfortable base and into the machine. Just like all of them before.

 

[NoDrama]

The $30 billion lending program would work by creating a fund that directly invests in &#8220;smaller&#8221; local and community banks (<$10 billion in assets) through purchasing preferred stock, which returns between 1% to 7% in dividends to the government based on how effective their small business lending programs are.


Those little Small business incentives are going to the banks, they will decide who gets the money, and it won't be your business. Any profit made will go to the government instead of the tax payers who put the original money up in the first place.

And why are you talking about the President? He has nothing to do with the economy, He can't pass any laws, he can't create money out of thin air, he has no control over the purse-strings of this country.

 

[NoDrama]

again with the reading comprehension, man. she ALREADY sold her own children, her own kin, into slavery. so, besides her kids that she had to sell into slavery due to lack of a minimum social safety net, what was so great that she gave up?

No she didn't. LOL you really think you could sell your kids into slavery in 1896 in Washington DC? Really? Your gullible, in case you didn't realize, slavery was abolished in 1833,about 63 years before this took place. Look it up, it happened when Abraham Lincoln was president, there was a big fight (they Called it a Civil War) and some people got hurt. History.

Ever think with a critical mind, or is your reading comprehension so good that you just believe everything you read?

You should be thanking me for going and reading the whole fucking sad sack of a lie story anyway.

The Dem Vs repub comment was aimed at the people who have already planted flags for their particular party, nothing to do with the story.


She COULD have sold her children into slavery 67 years prior, but if she had been 15 when she had her first child and had the second one by age 16 and sold them at that time , she would have to have been nearly 85 years old and still somehow was able to survive even in the winters on her very own with some assistance from neighbors and private charities.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

I give up...I don't have the time or energy to put forth on a conversation that goes no where. If you cant see the forest through the trees then I can't make you...

The $30 billion lending program would work by creating a fund that directly invests in &#8220;smaller&#8221; local and community banks (<$10 billion in assets) through purchasing preferred stock, which returns between 1% to 7% in dividends to the government based on how effective their small business lending programs are.


Those little Small business incentives are going to the banks, they will decide who gets the money, and it won't be your business. Any profit made will go to the government instead of the tax payers who put the original money up in the first place.

And why are you talking about the President? He has nothing to do with the economy, He can't pass any laws, he can't create money out of thin air, he has no control over the purse-strings of this country.

 

[doc111]

Are you insane? Did giving the Bush tax cuts create any jobs before. I think you take a position and then just talk out your ass with no acknowledgement of any outside information or, common sense, : IE bush tax cuts are good, end of conversation. Giving already rich people more money has never added jobs to the economy. They just rathole it away, take it out of circulation for regular people and turn it over to wall street, which makes them even more wealthy, but does buttkiss for the public and the lack of jobs.

Rich people just "rathole" all their money away, eh meddie? lmfao!!!!!!!!!!! I'm pretty sure that most wealthy folk have to spend a shitload of money to maintain their exorbitant lifestyles. Yachts cost a lot of money and even after you've made the initial investment there's fuel costs and maintenance, man is there a lot of maintenance on a yact! Somebody had to build that yacht. Somebody had to drill for the oil that was then extracted by more people which is refined into diesel fuel by yet more people, which is used to fuel the yact! What about when he fucks up a prop? He has to hire somebody to fix it. Painting, polishing, cleaning, all of these things you won't find too many rich people doing for themselves. Most don't even mow their own lawns! They hire someone to do it for them. You act like all wealthy people just sit around in their ivory towers counting their stacks of million dollar bills! These wealthy people that you loathe so much are human beings just like you and me. They put their pants on one leg at a time, just like we do! They breathe the same air we do, they walk on the same earth as we do. These people you love to hate so much are guilty of what exactly? Being born into more fortunate circumstances perhaps? Maybe they worked hard to provide a better life for themselves and their families? Maybe some of them were just lucky and were at the right place at the right time? Yes medman, there is evil in the world. Some of that evil hides behind a flag, some hides behind stacks of million dollar bills. Some evil wears a blue collar and drives a beat up piece of shit, old pickup truck. Perhaps you should take a look in the mirror my friend.

 

[redivider]

Don't programs like those encourage lazyness and drunkeness? If your a drunk who works everyday and busts your ass just to pay bills buy alcohol for after work and maybe have enough left over for something to eat and you found out their was a shelter for you where you don't have to pay rent and they would feed you to and give you money to drink every month...would you be worried about losing your job? would you even bother working?

this is why you can't talk out of your ass all the time. b/c you get called out.

the example NoDrama is using doesn't justify cutting all social programs b/c 'inebriated' basically means the ppl were alcoholics.

alcoholics are addicts, and like all addicts, breaking t he habit is hard.

you guys are claiming that b/c 5 drunks couldn't kick their habit and the social program didn't work, that we should stop trying.

and beardo, you can't read apparantely.

with the system we had before the new deal, elderly poverty was 80 percent, and that was enough of an economic burden that the country was in the shitter.

and that generation was much more stable, now we have 65 million baby boomers.

you might be heartless enough to be willing to risk having around 50 million elderly people living in poverty, but the economic impact of having such a large market niche decend into povety would really tear this country apart....

you really need to get your head out of your ass, your mouth away from that bong, and you really need to think before you type.

 

[NLXSK1]

you might be heartless enough to be willing to risk having around 50 million elderly people living in poverty, but the economic impact of having such a large market niche decend into povety would really tear this country apart....

Yeah, so all you heartless people reading this better tell your kids to STFU and just pay the 60-80% in taxes required to support those poor elderly people because we cant have them living in poverty... Nice...

 

[redivider]

percents are only valid if you give a total or provide a reference to the total figure you are referring to.

that statement as it stands is completely ambiguous and fruitless...

 

[UncleBuck]

Yeah, so all you heartless people reading this better tell your kids to STFU and just pay the 60-80% in taxes required to support those poor elderly people because we cant have them living in poverty... Nice...

you are truly the gift that keeps giving.

please find me one single example of someone paying 60%-80% of their income to support social security.

that sounds like the type of statistic that a delusional paranoid schizophrenic who sits in his parents' basement watching fox news all day would make.

when i used to send money to the fed gov out of my income, it would come out to about 22%-28%, depending on how much i made and how much of a refund i got at the end of the year. that included not only federal and state income taxes, but also social security and medicare.

by your logic then, 60% < 28%.

that is the world you live in, apparently. is it any wonder i crack jokes about your dead mother in a gangbang with gary coleman, lou gehrig, and jesus? you basically bring it upon yourself by saying the stupidest shit imaginable.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

Oh wow, another cold dose of something that doesn't exist, isn't likely, and has a 99.9999% chance of never happening. Yet you bring that in to a discourse such as this one?
Has anyone called you delusional recently? Or have you killed anyone that even approaches your compound?

Look, when the government does come to get you, for all the right reasons, just remember that you are living a life of lies and fear and are willing to put everything on the line for the pitiful day dream you call reality.

How about taking things seriously for once, instead of digging into imagination land with Mr. Rogers to rebuke someones firm stance on real issues? Argue with objective points please, or your posts are truly a waste of our time to read and respond to.

Yeah, so all you heartless people reading this better tell your kids to STFU and just pay the 60-80% in taxes required to support those poor elderly people because we cant have them living in poverty... Nice...

 

[UncleBuck]

Has anyone called you delusional recently?

i did not directly call him delusional in the last post, but i did say that his ramblings take the tone of a delusional paranoid schizophrenic.

his compound was not breached.

 

[medicineman]

So, taxing millionaires and billionaires an extra 3% would send them to the poor house? I seriously doubt they would even notice an effect on their everyday lives. Cutting SS or welfare or foodstamps, would have a devestating effect on those people. For the last two years I have been denied a COLA on my SS, while the real cost of living has gone bonkers, example: my wifes health insurance went from 291.00 a month, to 531.00. That is a direct hit on my income, basically 30%. Now I'm not asking for a 30% raise, that would be rediculous, because I could refuse to pay the insurance and take my chances on my wifes health, something I'm not about to do, but a little 3-5% increase would work just fine per year. I believe the real cost of living actually goes up more than that. It is in the governments interest to lie about inflation for obvious reasons, because then they can give huge tax breaks to the wealthy and not pass on the COLA to us poor people.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

I know a lot of people who are figuring out that if you factor in health care, SS, local, state, and fed taxes, that Canada is actually cheaper to live in. My healthcare is ridiculous as well, wish I had the public option there to press the inflated prices down.

So, taxing millionaires and billionaires an extra 3% would send them to the poor house? I seriously doubt they would even notice an effect on their everyday lives. Cutting SS or welfare or foodstamps, would have a devestating effect on those people. For the last two years I have been denied a COLA on my SS, while the real cost of living has gone bonkers, example: my wifes health insurance went from 291.00 a month, to 531.00. That is a direct hit on my income, basically 30%. Now I'm not asking for a 30% raise, that would be rediculous, because I could refuse to pay the insurance and take my chances on my wifes health, something I'm not about to do, but a little 3-5% increase would work just fine per year. I believe the real cost of living actually goes up more than that. It is in the governments interest to lie about inflation for obvious reasons, because then they can give huge tax breaks to the wealthy and not pass on the COLA to us poor people.

 

[NLXSK1]

The public option will not be cheaper unless it is majorly subsidized or you force people to pay into it.

Since forcing people to pay into it will ultimately be unconstitutional then the government will simply make you pay extra in taxes to cover the extra healthcare costs + the extra healthcare costs for 30 million people that dont pay for healthcare now.

You will never see lower rates no matter what happens...

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

Does anything work in your mind? You are against everything ever. No matter how much you have to ignore.

It is confirmed that it drives costs way down. Look at similar setups in Germany, France, Switzerland, and such. We actually pay more than twice what they do per capita on healthcare, and they do cover everyone. Here we let people die at an extravagant cost, or pay a ridiculous amount for so so coverage.

Wrong again...

The public option will not be cheaper unless it is majorly subsidized or you force people to pay into it.

Since forcing people to pay into it will ultimately be unconstitutional then the government will simply make you pay extra in taxes to cover the extra healthcare costs + the extra healthcare costs for 30 million people that dont pay for healthcare now.

You will never see lower rates no matter what happens...

 

[NLXSK1]

Does anything work in your mind? You are against everything ever. No matter how much you have to ignore.

It is confirmed that it drives costs way down. Look at similar setups in Germany, France, Switzerland, and such. We actually pay more than twice what they do per capita on healthcare, and they do cover everyone. Here we let people die at an extravagant cost, or pay a ridiculous amount for so so coverage.

Wrong again...

You try to say the healthcare is equal yet the rich and leaders of those countries fly to the US for medical care... You cannot compare apples to oranges. I see you left out Britain and Canada's healthcare. They do it by rationing and long waits for medical care. Yeah, it could be cheaper if it was... well cheaper and much harder to obtain. And that is what you are going to end up with.

You want quality healthcare at lower prices? Tort reform would eliminate alot of frivilous lawsuits and lower the insurance premiums for doctors. Get rid of the ridiculous amount of paperwork that doctors have to do to comply with medicare and medicade and they could cut staff and save money. Hell, I want the government completely out of healthcare, and that would save alot of money.

If car insurance was treated like health insurance it would cover the maintenance and repair of the car along with routine checkups and would be one hell of alot more expensive than it is now. If we started treating health insurance like what it should be which is major medical and started paying out of pocket for our expenses instead of having a 3rd party pay for them it would get cheaper as well. And introducing competition and up front pricing would additionally cut costs.

You want to save a shitload of money tomorrow? Put immigration offices into the emergency rooms and deport any illegal alien after treating them for their illness... That would save billions tomorrow.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

Wow way to address nothing. Im sure the problem with our system is mexicans. What else can be blame on them??

The problem with our health care system is that our coverage depends on how much companies want to lose off their bottom line to cover you. Should you be lucky enough to be employed and/or offered healthcare.

Yes I left out canada and england, as they have a different system. I never mentioned single payer once. I mentioned a public option. Our health care is great if your income is. Our health care is third world if you are poor. You really don't want to walk down this road because there is no way to prove that what we have is sustainable.

Look at the stats on infant mortality, life expectancy, obesity, heart health, pharmaceutical costs, ect.. ect.. ect... All of which run against your position.
Our health care depends on income, state, employer, age, conditions, so on and so forth. If you have money, you are taken care of with the best technology on earth.
Our health care is geared by a bottom line, not patient health. If you were to suddenly cover everyone without coverage in this national, we have waits as well until we expanded our health locations.
Thank god we just let them suffer, or it might have a minor inconvenience on your life.

Sounds like you have proven once again to be a short sighted, selfish nay-sayer, who only focuses on negatives, and makes stuff up if their is none.

You try to say the healthcare is equal yet the rich and leaders of those countries fly to the US for medical care... You cannot compare apples to oranges. I see you left out Britain and Canada's healthcare. They do it by rationing and long waits for medical care. Yeah, it could be cheaper if it was... well cheaper and much harder to obtain. And that is what you are going to end up with.

You want quality healthcare at lower prices? Tort reform would eliminate alot of frivilous lawsuits and lower the insurance premiums for doctors. Get rid of the ridiculous amount of paperwork that doctors have to do to comply with medicare and medicade and they could cut staff and save money. Hell, I want the government completely out of healthcare, and that would save alot of money.

If car insurance was treated like health insurance it would cover the maintenance and repair of the car along with routine checkups and would be one hell of alot more expensive than it is now. If we started treating health insurance like what it should be which is major medical and started paying out of pocket for our expenses instead of having a 3rd party pay for them it would get cheaper as well. And introducing competition and up front pricing would additionally cut costs.

You want to save a shitload of money tomorrow? Put immigration offices into the emergency rooms and deport any illegal alien after treating them for their illness... That would save billions tomorrow.