99% of poor people have refridgerators!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over

Shame on the poor, for having refrigerators... but really, Fox News sucks. Bill O Reilly, Glenn Beck, all of them infuriate me. I understand Jon Steward is also kinda sensationalist, but it seems to me he tells closer to the truth.

I know this board is like 99% opposite my political views, but we all have opinions. but where do people find the sense that cutting NPR, EPA (the environment isn't something that just democrats use, or even just Americans) and PBS and other "frivolous" programs is the way to go. Not sure the exact amount of funding these programs get but if you really just sit and think, how is that a better solution than say not extending the bush tax cuts which has a HUGE deal. We lost almost $1 trillion over ten years.
An old issue but will probably come to the forefront soon enough...the cost of Obama's health care reform would have cost ~$940 billion of 10 years, but would have raised $1.078 trillion over same period. During first ten years, deficit would be reduced by $138 trillion, would be reduced by 1.2 trillion over second ten years...estimates are from congressional budget office.
I kinda understand that you don't want to pay for other people, and we all want lower taxes, but I think we all know our tax system is totally messed up. and our taxes as a percentage of GDP is pretty low when compared to other developed countries. but what can I do for my country? I can get an education and think critically, I am also willing to pay more taxes, because I believe in helping my fellow man. I think a mans true worth is based on what he is willing to do when he has nothing to gain. I have more to say and more on my mind but I got class in the morning. but on one last note, politicians (all of them, both D and R) really need to stop basing economic policy around ideology and false economics. I never really understood why the people who wield so much control over our country get to make policy without really being experts on the subject.

Maybe im idealized, my values might be stronger than most, I guess I expect others to do the right thing, but that doesnt happen.

I should just learn to farm...

A year or two back, a small bipartisan panel came up with a way to overhaul the income tax system to increase tax revenue and help get the budget in line. The general plan was to lower the overall income tax rate, but to eliminate nearly all deductions and credits.

Fewer loopholes, so simpler to enforce and harder for people to avoid paying taxes. Result would have been lower taxes for the majority of Americans, particularly lower-middle class.

The big thing that killed it was that it would have eliminated the tax credit for home buyers. So no legislator wanted to vote for it, even though it would have been the right thing, because they'd get demonized and voted out.

fritzsch wrote: An old issue but will probably come to the forefront soon enough...the cost of Obama's health care reform would have cost ~$940 billion of 10 years, but would have raised $1.078 trillion over same period. During first ten years, deficit would be reduced by $138 trillion, would be reduced by 1.2 trillion over second ten years...estimates are from congressional budget office.

I'm not going to defend it, because I really don't have the time to do so. But this is just a fallacy. It would not raise 1 trillion, and the deficit would only go up.

BTW... By and large, I more or less agree with you. The big problem is that everybody wants more things for less money. Democridiots want to increase taxes to fix the money problems. Republitards want to decrease spending to fix it. Guess what... We need to do both. And in magnitudes that are far beyond what each are proposing for increased taxes/decreased spending.

I just was watching PBS (one of my favorite channels, btw) and was listening to a man who was trying to convince Christie to run for president. He said that he (a very rich man) doesn't mind if the government wants tax him an enormous amount, IF that taxed money all went towards the national debt. It ain't happening, so he doesn't want to be taxed. I'm with him.
FWIW, this guy also said that while he had hoped Christie would run, he has pledged his allegiance to Romney. He also said that if Hillary or Bill Clinton were running today, they would get his vote ahead of Obama or any of the Republicans currently vying for the ticket.

EDIT: The show was Charlie Rose and the interviewee was Kenneth Langone.

Salanis wrote: So no legislator wanted to vote for it, even though it would have been the right thing, because they'd get demonized and voted out.

This hits the nail right on the head. It is why I was so hoping that Christie would decide to run for the republican nomination. From what I've seen; the guy does what he thinks is right, not what he thinks is popular. Out of the current field I see only possibly Ron Paul who is like that.

Hope I didn't flounder this at all.

The American "poor" are hardly poor. They live in larger homes than the average European. They have cell phones and cable TV and cars. None of them have ever really been poor. I just can't feel bad for people who have so much. I know poverty. I know what its like to live on streets with everything you own crammed into a duffel and a small toll box. I know what its like to go to the temp labour office 7 days a week to work for min wage so you can afford to eat something and rent a slummy motel room once a week to take a real shower and not just a whores bath. When the American "poor" have lived like that then I'll start to give a crap.

fritzsch wrote: I kinda understand that you don't want to pay for other people I am also willing to pay more taxes, because I believe in helping my fellow man. I think a mans true worth is based on what he is willing to do when he has nothing to gain.

Darn right I don't want to pay for other people. And you know why? Because people are scamming the system. People are collecting disability because they don't know how to put down the Big Mac and pick up a salad. People are on welfare because it pays better than the jobs they are qualified for (not the ones they feel they are entitled to)

I have no problem helping those who a) truly need help and b) are willing to help themselves but I assure you that's a small minority of the people who are getting my tax dollars.

Many people out there are willing to help their fellow man, but the government doesn't need to mandate it. Based on your own premise of a man's worth being based on what he is willing to do when he has nothing to gain then taxing me to death proves nothing of my worth. My gain is not going to jail. Forced "charity" is not charity.

mtn wrote: I'm not going to defend it, because I really don't have the time to do so. But this is just a fallacy. It would not raise 1 trillion, and the deficit would only go up.

Not 100% sure the credibility of the data but from what Ive been told by my econ professor, and just from quickly double checking his numbers, it does appear that the estimates I gave are correct. Feel free to show me otherwise though. Keep in mind these are just estimates. I also don't know if that estimate has changed since last fall. Its my understanding that the money raised comes from increasing the medicare tax on households earning over 200k and through cutting medicare, but dont quote me on that

ThePhranc wrote: The American "poor" are hardly poor. They live in larger homes than the average European. They have cell phones and cable TV and cars. None of them have ever really been poor. I just can't feel bad for people who have so much. I know poverty. I know what its like to live on streets with everything you own crammed into a duffel and a small toll box. I know what its like to go to the temp labour office 7 days a week to work for min wage so you can afford to eat something and rent a slummy motel room once a week to take a real shower and not just a whores bath. When the American "poor" have lived like that then I'll start to give a crap.

Ive lived in germany, and I dont think its entirely fair to compare home size. Granted my experience is limited to Berlin, but when I lived there we lived in a small apartment and its no bigger than the apartment Im renting for college. Its just more of the norm to live in smaller spaces, which I think goes back to smaller centralized densely packed cities pre industrial revolution. America has had the luxury of never being crammed for space, and I think that is a contributer to house size. But we would have a serious serious problem if a substantial amount of lived in the conditions you described before we started to help them. I think the aid given helps to prevent such absolute poverty. But I do agree to a point, there are things I would not have, like the ones you listed, if I was struggling to eat everyday.

JThw8 wrote: Darn right I don't want to pay for other people. And you know why? Because people are scamming the system. People are collecting disability because they don't know how to put down the Big Mac and pick up a salad. People are on welfare because it pays better than the jobs they are qualified for (not the ones they feel they are entitled to) I have no problem helping those who a) truly need help and b) are willing to help themselves but I assure you that's a small minority of the people who are getting my tax dollars. Many people out there are willing to help their fellow man, but the government doesn't need to mandate it. Based on your own premise of a man's worth being based on what he is willing to do when he has nothing to gain then taxing me to death proves nothing of my worth. My gain is not going to jail. Forced "charity" is not charity.

I understand that position and I do agree with most of your points. I definitely dont want to help someone who isnt going to do anything to help themselves. Part of what I said earlier is I wish people would do the right thing, and that includes those receiving tax dollars. But the truth is we do have people scamming the system, I just think we need to find a way to prevent that without just eliminating it for the ones who do play by the rules.

Refrigerators, and other "white goods" have long been used as an economic indicator. Stupid as it sounds, if the US has more fridges than other countries, our economic prosperity looks better on paper. Somewhat offset by recent developments I would guess.

fritzsch wrote:

mtn wrote: I'm not going to defend it, because I really don't have the time to do so. But this is just a fallacy. It would not raise 1 trillion, and the deficit would only go up.

Not 100% sure the credibility of the data but from what Ive been told by my econ professor, and just from quickly double checking his numbers, it does appear that the estimates I gave are correct. Feel free to show me otherwise though. Keep in mind these are just estimates. I also don't know if that estimate has changed since last fall. Its my understanding that the money raised comes from increasing the medicare tax on households earning over 200k and through cutting medicare, but dont quote me on that

Not going to show the data, seeing as I really don't care enough for an internet forum, I really don't have the time to actually find it again and almost none of it was from the internet--all of it comes from Wall Street Journal, two Econ professors (one with a PhD from your school), a Finance professor (with a PhD from your school, not that finance has anything to do with this really), and a family background of healthcare--from the insurance aspect to the doctor aspect to the pharmaceutical company aspect.

I am not sure that a fridge is such a good indication of being poor. EVERY place I have rented came with one.. I personally have never owned a dishwasher, stove, or a Fridge and have never needed to

Whether its owned or rented, the fact that you're living in a home that has a roof, windows, plumbing and appliances means that - for 99% of the rest of the worlds poor - you've got it pretty damned good, even if you're living below the poverty line by American standards.

"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty." — Robert A. Heinlein

I've got two refrigerators. Does that make me rich ?

What is the saying ? the president proposes, congress disposes. Our biggest problem to day is the dissfunctional congress,who are more interested in control and elections than the problems of the public.

I can assure you those numbers are far from correct, Congress' current spending spree has us on be $20+ Trillion in the hole by the end of the decade.

I suggest looking past your Econ prof, whose likely never worked outside of Academia, and read MANY, DIFFERENT sources.

We could get into the bottom 47% pay no Income Tax (they do pay the others thought), or the bottom 40% make money with things like the EITC for kids (yay, encourage those who can't afford to support themselves to create more mouths to feed), how the top 10% pay 75% of all Income taxes.

But you'd know all this stuff if you had really been doing your research.

Sorry to hit you with both barrels, but I was an idealistic kid in college too. Then I got into the real world and saw how it all works. Watched my younger sister with three kids milk the welfare system, etc.

ThePhranc wrote: The American "poor" are hardly poor. They live in larger homes than the average European. They have cell phones and cable TV and cars. None of them have ever really been poor. I just can't feel bad for people who have so much. I know poverty. I know what its like to live on streets with everything you own crammed into a duffel and a small toll box. I know what its like to go to the temp labour office 7 days a week to work for min wage so you can afford to eat something and rent a slummy motel room once a week to take a real shower and not just a whores bath. When the American "poor" have lived like that then I'll start to give a crap.

I, for one, don't want the American poor to ever have to live like that. Growing up poor and spending time in the middle east makes you really appreciate the simple things.

[angrywhiteman]

RE: "American Poor"

I'm a pretty liberal guy, but man, it does fry my ass when I hear stories in the ER of people that come in as "self pay" --ie, no insurance and no plans to pay for medical services --and use the ER as their primary care-----and they have the latest cell phone, their hair is "did" and they've got the big ol' nails—and theorizing—probably a big ol' car payment too.

And yet, I've got health insurance and a two income household, zero non-mortgage debt, and I'm scraping by to pay for the birth of my second kid--because I'm not shirking my responsibilities.

[/angrywhiteman]

For those of you who support Government healthcare, please drive to your nearest VA hospital and sit in the lobby for 15 minutes. I guarantee you will no longer support Government healthcare in any way, shape, or form.

Sincerely, Veteran.

Javelin wrote: For those of you who support Government healthcare, please drive to your nearest VA hospital and sit in the lobby for 15 minutes. I guarantee you will no longer support Government healthcare in any way, shape, or form. Sincerely, Veteran.

VA hospitals suck balls.

mtn wrote:

Salanis wrote: So no legislator wanted to vote for it, even though it would have been the right thing, because they'd get demonized and voted out.

This hits the nail right on the head. It is why I was so hoping that Christie would decide to run for the republican nomination. From what I've seen; the guy does what he thinks is right, not what he thinks is popular. Out of the current field I see only possibly Ron Paul who is like that.

Well, it's easy to just blame the scuzzy politicians, but they were reacting to what their voting constituents wanted. When a bunch of people and organizations start writing angry letters about not wanting to lose their tax deduction on the home they only bought because it got the a big tax credit. Or whatever tax credit that was helping them. The representatives were doing their primary job of representing their constituents.

I think the tax changes were really the right way to go, and many of the legislators probably thought so too. How strongly do they believe that though? Is it worth getting voted out over?

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say you or I were a legislator who was generally doing the job because you want to make this country a better place. Is this issue at this time the Big Item that you believe in strongly enough that you're willing to end your political career and any possibility you have of using your office to make a positive impact in the future?

fritzsch wrote:

mtn wrote: I'm not going to defend it, because I really don't have the time to do so. But this is just a fallacy. It would not raise 1 trillion, and the deficit would only go up.

Not 100% sure the credibility of the data but from what Ive been told by my econ professor, and just from quickly double checking his numbers, it does appear that the estimates I gave are correct. Feel free to show me otherwise though. Keep in mind these are just estimates. I also don't know if that estimate has changed since last fall. Its my understanding that the money raised comes from increasing the medicare tax on households earning over 200k and through cutting medicare, but dont quote me on that

the way that congress slid this past was that they told the CBO (congressional budget office) to only count the taxes collected for the first 5 years, then count both the taxes and costs for the second 5 years. this is why the numbers say that it will reduce the deficit even though it will cost far more than it collects once the program is actually "working".

Salanis wrote: A year or two back, a small bipartisan panel came up with a way to overhaul the income tax system to increase tax revenue and help get the budget in line. The general plan was to *lower* the overall income tax rate, but to eliminate nearly all deductions and credits. Fewer loopholes, so simpler to enforce and harder for people to avoid paying taxes. Result would have been lower taxes for the majority of Americans, particularly lower-middle class. The big thing that killed it was that it would have eliminated the tax credit for home buyers. So no legislator wanted to vote for it, even though it would have been the right thing, because they'd get demonized and voted out.

wait, are you talking about the tax credit for first time homebuyers, or the mortgage interest tax deduction? these are two separate things

Javelin wrote: For those of you who support Government healthcare, please drive to your nearest VA hospital and sit in the lobby for 15 minutes. I guarantee you will no longer support Government healthcare in any way, shape, or form. Sincerely, Veteran.

Amen! Anyone who has been a victim, um I mean recipient, of any government healthcare in this country (ie. veterans) will tell you the government doesn't do a good job with healthcare.

Been out of the military since 2000 and they are still trying to correct all the wrongs that government dental work did to my teeth.

Per Schroeder wrote: [angrywhiteman] RE: "American Poor" I'm a pretty liberal guy, but man, it does fry my ass when I hear stories in the ER of people that come in as "self pay" --ie, no insurance and no plans to pay for medical services --and use the ER as their primary care-----and they have the latest cell phone, their hair is "did" and they've got the big ol' nails—and theorizing—probably a big ol' car payment too. And yet, I've got health insurance and a two income household, zero non-mortgage debt, and *I'm* scraping by to pay for the birth of my second kid--because I'm not shirking my responsibilities. [/angrywhiteman]

Per, have your kid at home- way cheaper. We just had our first at home, and our total bill (from the midwife) was about 5% of what our friends paid for a normal hospital delivery.

It's what the rich AND poor used to do, before we all started to think we need a surgeon deliver a baby.

Strizzo wrote: wait, are you talking about the tax credit for first time homebuyers, or the mortgage interest tax *deduction*? these are two separate things

It was a little while ago, and I forget all the details of what exactly it cut. If I had to make a guess, I'm pretty sure the answer is both. If I recall, more people were pissed off about the first time homebuyer credit. But this plan would have put the vast majority tax credits and tax deductions on the chopping block, with the idea of balancing them by lowering the overall tax rate substantially.

Too many people got really angry that they might lose that one big tax boon that was helping them at the moment.