Welcome to PatsFans.com

The working man is a sucker

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Triumph, Nov 25, 2012.

  1. Triumph

    Triumph Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    6,755
    Likes Received:
    115
    Ratings:
    +356 / 58 / -29

    #32 Jersey

  2. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,900
    Likes Received:
    152
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    From your link...


    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: Nov 25, 2012
  3. Ilikehappyppl

    Ilikehappyppl 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Nice work of fiction there....

    zerohedge.com? So blogs are factual now?

    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.:bricks::bricks::bricks:

    Zero Hedge - RationalWiki
    This is right up your alley PR, you would love this guy!;)
     
  4. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,680
    Likes Received:
    558
    Ratings:
    +1,346 / 34 / -28

    #87 Jersey


    Durden was just referencing the original piece of work but you already knew that right?

    The original link is dead ... Northsidesun.com I guess does not archive.

    Here is the entire piece:


    http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/u..._With-welfare-it-makes-sense-to-work-less.pdf

    This guy tears that apart as inaccurate ... take your pick.

    http://www.tnr.com/article/82962/conservatives-economic-chart-fox-de-rugy

     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2012
  5. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,836
    Likes Received:
    343
    Ratings:
    +712 / 11 / -7

    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.
     
  6. Hamar

    Hamar In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,619
    Likes Received:
    69
    Ratings:
    +219 / 0 / -2

    So your answer is to state your opinion? Noted.
     
  7. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,680
    Likes Received:
    558
    Ratings:
    +1,346 / 34 / -28

    #87 Jersey

    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.
     
  8. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,836
    Likes Received:
    343
    Ratings:
    +712 / 11 / -7

    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.

    Look forward, children. Look forward. :)

    PFnV
     
  9. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,281
    Likes Received:
    225
    Ratings:
    +516 / 14 / -28

    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...
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  10. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,900
    Likes Received:
    152
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    So, then you agree that somone on gov't assistance doesn't deserve to have equal disposeable income as a WORKING family of 4 making $60k?
     
  11. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,900
    Likes Received:
    152
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    PFiVA....there is and must be a limit to everything. And we need to determine the limits of social welfare funing/spending.

    If we were to raise taxes on the middle class, that would hurt the middle class. Even someone solidly in the middle like you and I. I'm sure you believe you can afford to pay more taxes, but I can't. Not unless I WANT to work an extra year or two just to support my country....and honestly, I do not.

    Should the middle class always be the one to sacrifice for our "poor"?

    My opinion is that unless the middle class' condition has improved significantly, we can't raise taxes on them. We can't keep trying to improve conditions of our poor and continually allow the middle to erode.

    Besides, Obama's biggest promise is not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250k. And Americans want him to keep that promise.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  12. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,836
    Likes Received:
    343
    Ratings:
    +712 / 11 / -7

    Stop crying the blues about the pittance you actually have to work for the taxes that actually support poverty relief, PR. You can phrase any outlay as "working another ____" to support something you prefer not to. The very fact that you and I are discussing retirement in relation to our tax burden is proof positive that we will not, after all, be immediately affected. Although yes, I will feel that too -- have you worked out how many years you have to work for doubling the defense budget over the last decade? Much more pertinent point.

    As I explained above, your biggest problem is programs specifically set up to enhance your retirement, Social Security and Medicare. These are not transfers to people who never worked by and large. They're a social contract with the realization that all of us will one day grow old.

    I ought to just bottom-line it with one of your patented Questions Representing What Is Not Happening...

    "So you agree that NO old person should be ground up and fed to pigs to get the price of pork lower?"

    Then you could say "well, of course, that sounds reasonable." Then I could say "even though that's not happening I could make a bunch of spurious linkages if I've eaten my wheaties and come out with something sort of like that."

    The OP in this thread is a ginormous FAIL as has been demonstrated.

    You keep wanting this to be a philosophical exercise, yet when making the philosophical point, the OP cheats. He quotes a crap blog that's already thoroughly disproven.

    So if you want to argue "WAHHHHHHHHH everybody's tax is too high already!" you need another thread for it. This one is "WAHHHHHH everybody's tax is too high, look it all goes to a mythical welfare queen, and I can prove it by getting the math wrong!"

    You really want to hang your hat on that?

    Now, here's where I do agree with you: The place to start is the rich, because we still need economic growth to be the cornerstone of how we deal with both employment and debt.

    I agree that right now the bottom and the middle need to be left alone.

    If economic growth is strong enough, and we are sincere about even (gasp!) defense cuts, yes we can get to a lower debt to GDP ratio more quickly.

    The question is how quickly we'll insist on that lower ratio, how rabidly we'll run around shouting "the sky is falling," how real the few revenue raisers will be (e.g., the 4% rise on the tax obligations of the rich,) how stupid people are (e.g. how strenuously they'll continue to scream bloody murder about those making five times as much of them not really being rich,) etc.

    Once again, you can't go back and cut spending that's already happened. You can't cut your way to lower debt.

    Once again, under the Clinton rates, the U.S. did just fine.

    Once again, the boy-king's Great Recession is at least in part the product of his rock-bottom tax rates.

    What did I do, when Obama went and also cut the Social Security tax? I raised the amount that goes to my TSP every check.

    Like you I could whine that one day someone may "raise" my Social Security tax again (by letting it return to the 6.2% it was before). I could reduce the amount I put into the TSP every check. I could therefore claim that I have to delay retirement X years.

    What I'd really be saying is I want the same social safety net, but I never want to pay for it.

    It's just the reliable old crock of promising Americans something for nothing, then riling them up against the most vulnerable when they can't have something for nothing.

    PFnV
     
  13. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,900
    Likes Received:
    152
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    Ok, I don't want to have to work another day to support any aspect of gov't spending....is that better?

    I'll stop crying about higher taxes when others stop crying about needing more funding.

    Putting the SS deduction back to 6.2% is NOT a tax increase. Obama never should have cut THAT tax....and I think we agreed upon that a while ago.

    Regarding the OP, I WOULD like to see a valid, direct comparison of disposeable income between the same family units used in the article/blog. Because a working family earning $50-$60k should have a LOT more disposeable income than one making $14k and on gov't assistance. As a matter of fact, the family on gov't assistance should almost have zero disposeable income.

    Gov't assistance is not supposed to provide "Disposeable" income at all.
     
  14. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,056
    Likes Received:
    346
    Ratings:
    +618 / 12 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    You might want to look up "disposable income," before issuing any more proclaimations.
     
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,836
    Likes Received:
    343
    Ratings:
    +712 / 11 / -7

    No, that's not better, PR. Your government, which you voted for (or against,) has spent 16 trillion dollars.

    You have complained loudly on here about the terrible problem of having that debt.

    I didn't vote for Bush either time. It doesn't mean I get to say "He shouldn't have spent that money," and expect it to have some bearing on fiscal policy.

    If you want to shut up about how terrible it is that we have a debt, be my guest. If you want to shut up about how terrible it is that anybody ever pays any taxes, be my guest.

    Just don't expect to get a free pass when you say "We have to cut the deficit/debt and I don't have to help (but I'm a fair man -- nobody has to help!)

    I agree. Just as Bush should never have made the "temporary" cuts giving trillions to the rich (and a nice little bump to those of us in the middle.) They were phrased as temporary and they were given sunset dates. They were supposed to be stimulative. They did not work to achieve economic growth because the cuts were top-heavy.

    They were not supposed to be permanent.

    In short, the Bush cuts are exactly the same case as the Social Security cut, except that Bush's policies don't work and Obama's do.

    The reason I think it's fine to leave in place the part of that that goes to workers is simple: We are in need of money in the average guy's pocket -- i.e., the payroll worker. We are not in need of a new monocle for the Monopoly Guy.

    Families on government assistance do have close to zero disposable income.

    If you'd "love to see" this breakdown, why don't you research it without cheating on the numbers.

    The reason it looks different when you cheat, is that you cheat to make it look different.

    You want that palatial lifestyle you get when you're on government assistance? Why don't you just look for allllll the programs you can access, get your ducks in a row, and ask your boss as a special favor to let you go in a round of layoffs.

    You'll quickly discover that most program intended to give limited relief do in fact give limited relief (including unemployment benefits, although given the massive scale of the recent fustercluck the length of unemployment insurance benes was extended -- just as they always are in recessions.)

    Poor people aren't living in the lap of luxury, PR. That's just a scary story righties tell to scare the gullible.

    Life's harder if you make less money, as we'll both find out when we're older, despite the fact that we're both playing catch-up to our friends in the upper middle class.

    You've told me a little about your background to date, and my own has some similarities. To put it mildly, neither of us lived by some template of "Go and pursue money from the age of 10 without regard to enjoyment of life etc." Both of us hit our peak earning years, and started earning more. But there are people who put a little more away all the time from a young age.

    You don't get to catch up to them by welching on obligations to the poor and co-obligations among the middle class. (Neither do I.)

    Bear in mind that there are also those who have those families of four to take care of, who are in jobs neither of us would ever want to work (stocking the Walmart shelves, etc.,) and who work another whole job in an attempt to make ends meet.

    "The squeeze" isn't "on" because you and me are now aware we have to put more into savings.

    One more thing, speaking of retirement - how about cutting all company matches to the savings you do put away? Stop giving them that tax break, and of course, remove the tax break on deferring taxation through workplace savings?

    "WAHHHHHH why does my tax money go to enhancing your retirement security?"

    That's a hypothetical. You know me well enough to know that I think such programs are beneficial society-wide.

    But if I wanted to adopt this bullcrap "I don't want one more dollar of my tax money going to...." I could easily point to these perks.

    There is a large aspect of our society that takes care of those who cannot work, whether because they're disabled or elderly. They take various guises, including breaks that you and I enjoy.

    The middle and above live okay in the good old U.S.A. I don't think we need to fix our fears that have no substantiating facts by urging that the poor among us be in third-world conditions.

    So this is why I think the best solution is to cut out these me-first narratives about my tax money, and think about what's best for our country instead. And before you get onto the complaint that all taxes are higher than they've ever been and you can never make ends meet and neither can anybody else and it's because they pay taxes, you need to look at the facts:

    - Taxes are at an historical low
    - Debt is at (of course) an historical high (This is not surprising, but debt to GDP increasing is a problem.)
    - Debt to GDP has increased above 100%, and that puts us in territory where it's an issue. It's a manageable one, and one we have time to address. But it's on the table.
    - The gross debt number is irrelevant, but the debt-to-GDP ratio is relevant.
    - The debt-to-GDP ratio can be addressed various ways.
    - Some ways are self-defeating, because they decrease the denominator (GDP) - witness the projected economic outcome of the fiscal cliff.

    So the question is what's the right mix. I think the right mix is actually off the table already: A period of sustained investment targeted to yield sustained growth. You don't think that would work, and a lot of people agree with you. That's why it's off the table, even though the data available say it's most likely to work.

    You keep claiming some variety of the idea that not paying taxes will result in economic growth, despite the fact that if nobody pays any taxes, the growth of GDP becomes irrelevant, because 0% of twice the GDP is still 0.

    Clearly, the right mix that will be acceptable to the majority of people is going to target tax cuts to the poor and the middle, where they help GDP growth the most.

    As to cuts to services, you like to look for single horror stories that frighten the children, but our latest hunt for such one-off examples has once again run into the reality that that's not how the system works.

    The larger point -- the one supported by the preponderance of data rather than these single anecdotal scare stories -- is that preventing people from falling off their own "cliff" into poverty, through temporary mutual aid programs, actually lends stability to the whole system. You get back more by keeping older people independent to the extent possible than you would get by gutting programs that do so.

    But that takes systemic and long-term thinking, something not in vogue among the bumper-sticker-fueled debates of today.

    Feh.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  16. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,281
    Likes Received:
    225
    Ratings:
    +516 / 14 / -28

    That needs to be qualified, by saying that you unequivocally trust the facts and figures provided...

    The Repubbots keep marching along, the poor are bad and the rich are good..
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  17. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,900
    Likes Received:
    152
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    I don't need to....

    Disposable income is what's left after all the bills are paid.

    That's why it's called "disposable"

    It is NOT what's left if you choose NOT to pay all your bills.....

    And please tell us you weren't referring to spelling......
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  18. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,900
    Likes Received:
    152
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    If you read what I wrote, I said I'd like to see a VALID comparison of the hypothetical comparison in the OP.

    We're all the same Darryl....but we don't all deserve the same DarrylS....
     
  19. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,900
    Likes Received:
    152
    Ratings:
    +434 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    Don't ever "feh" me again pal!:p

    I'm not a bumper-sticker guy....I have honestly never in my life had a sticker on my bumper...not even a spiderman one.

    As for voting for GWB, neither of us ever voted for him.

    I also enjoy scaring children....just ask my nephews!

    The only thing that scares me is the percent of US HH's on gov't assistance. With the pending cliff and deficit that WILL be address at some point, we can't have almost 50% of our citizens on gov't assistance long-term. So that needs to be addressed as well. And no, I'm not referring to social security for retired Americans.

    If we all end up contributing to reducing our deficit, so be it. I'll pay it willingly. But I don't want to see increases in social programs as part of that package.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  20. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,836
    Likes Received:
    343
    Ratings:
    +712 / 11 / -7

    We don't have, nor have we ever had, "close to 50% on government assistance."

    Feh. Feh. Feh.

    PFnV

    edit - and no, there won't be increases to social programs as part of the package. The big scary communist socialist nazi totalitarian government takeover already happened. It consisted of people buying health insurance instead of transferring their costs to the rest of us.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>