ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year."
If this is true, then we need to seriously cut back on the amount we hand out. There is no way someone on gov't assistance should have more disposeable income than a family making $60k/year.
After all, the average income for US households is slightly less than $60k/year.
If this is indeed verifiable fact, then this should be BIG news moving forward.
A family not on gov't assistance should have significantly more disposeable income than one dependent upon gov't assistance no matter what. Otherwise, what's the incentive to get a better job or improve one's situation?
Last edited by PatriotsReign; 11-25-2012 at 05:21 PM..
Tyler Durden is the name of Brad Pit in the movie fight club....That's the name of the guy that wrote this piece of fiction.
Quote:
Zero Hedge[1] is a popular bat**** insane finance blog run by an anonymous founder that posts articles under the name "Tyler Durden", after Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club antagonist personality. Tyler claims to be a "believer in a sweeping conspiracy that casts the alumni of Goldman Sachs as a powerful cabal at the helm of U.S. policy, with the Treasury and the Federal Reserve colluding to preserve the status quo." His solution actually mirrors the anatagonist in Fight Club in that Tyler wants to lead a catastrophic market crash in order to destroy banking institutions and bring back "real" free market capitalism.[2]
The only writer very conclusively identified is Dan Ivandjiiski, who conducts public interviews on behalf of Zero Hedge.
The site posts nearly indecipherable analyses of multiple seemingly unrelated subjects to point towards a consistent theme of economic collapse any day now. Tyler seems to repeat The Economic Collapse Blog's idea of posting blog articles many times a day and encouraging people to post it as far and wide as humanly possible. Tyler moves away from the format of long lists to write insanely dense volumes[3][4] filled with often contradicting jargon that makes one wonder if the writers even know what the words actually mean.[5]
I sent the chart to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and its researchers replied with a lengthy dossier of the chart’s errors. For starters, Emmerich overestimated the federal tax liability of the $60,000 family by failing to distinguish between gross and taxable income (the $60,000 family only has $40,400 in taxable income, according to the CBPP) and by ignoring the child tax credit, which benefits wealthier families more than poorer ones.
The family making $60,000 would actually pay only about $8,043 in payroll and income taxes, not $13,034. As for Medicaid, CBPP pointed out that a family making $14,500 wouldn’t actually be eligible in Mississippi, where the cutoff level of qualifying income for a family of three is a paltry $8,064 per year.
Even if that family were eligible, however, Emmerich’s estimate of their benefits is way off. Medicaid is a relative bargain for Mississippi—the state spends, on average, $2,510 a year per adult beneficiary and $1,659 per child beneficiary, according to the most recent numbers.
Details, details! LOL... his point seems to be "poor people are living off the fat of the land at the expense of the rest of us." Just because it's not factually accurate doesn't mean I'm not afraid that somebody will get my money.
Details, details! LOL... his point seems to be "poor people are living off the fat of the land at the expense of the rest of us." Just because it's not factually accurate doesn't mean I'm not afraid that somebody will get my money.
The reality of this situation going forward is that the rich cannot possibly fund the current level of entitlements even with a raise in their taxes. To maintain the status quo the money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is going to be the upper middle class and possibly the middle class themselves.
If my statements are true then the title of this thread is also somewhat true. We will have more working people supporting the people who do not work. That's not to say that the rich don't work but ... okay I'm saying it anyways ... they don't break a sweat to often or get dirty to much.
How Obama and boehner navigate this slippery slope will be interesting. It's easy for the tax payers to say end more entitlements ... but to drastically end them would equal chaos and rioting in this country.
The reality of this situation is and always has been that the working man (and woman) is overwhelmingly both the provider and the recipient of such programs.
The constant attempt to paint some theoretical welfare queen as bleeding dry the "good people" is the biggest con-job the cons have going. The two biggest entitlements are social security OASDI -- which depends primarily on work in the first place -- and Medicare, another program that has nothing to do with poverty. This is stuff to stop the expansion of poverty, primarily by putting money in the pockets of former workers, and keeping current workers from having boomerang grandparents sharing Skip's old room with him.
The social safety net is not "theft" or some other such crock. It's the way first-world economies work. You guys think the 19th century was some kind of paradise? Because that's where your social "thinking" points.
How do you live for the 40 weeks you do not work??
If there were awards for idiotic, unintelligent posts on this board.. this would be in contention for the winnner..
Drudge?? They could have at least used a generous state, but Mississippi?? One of the least favorable states towards the poor.. what a dummie, there could have been much more hyperbole and hysteria than this. I heard in California they make poor people millionaires...
OTOH the working man has always been a sucker, a pawn in the grand chess game of the corporatists or the politicians...
12Likes
The working man is a sucker
Linear Mode
