Net beneficiaries of the US tax system

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not talking about an increase. I am talking about moving some money from direct welfare into the EIC, at a one-to-one rate that does not increase spending. This is in response to your claim that federal subsidies do not encourage the poor to work. I am proposing shifting the federal subsides into programs that have been shown to be very effective.

Okay, but that doesn't change the answer. To play along, we should 'move' the money into not having been borrowed at interest in the first place. Again, once we get our house in order and stop the insanity, that might be a great idea.

To get the 'house in order' as you suggest, then we will have to cut various parts of the budget. Assuming that there is still room in your balanced budget for programs like the EIC, then it is not mutually exclusive to both decrease the budget and increase the funding available to the EIC relative to welfare programs. If I take your approach literally, it suggests that we cannot even begin to talk about any budget changes unless I also find some way to decrease the deficit. That doesn't really address the merits of the idea, and is a poor approach to take because there may be lots of good things we can do to rearrange the way the budget is allocated without increasing the deficit. Ignoring them just because we have a deficit problem doesn't help.

[Phatscotty]

I'm not talking about an increase. I am talking about moving some money from direct welfare into the EIC, at a one-to-one rate that does not increase spending. This is in response to your claim that federal subsidies do not encourage the poor to work. I am proposing shifting the federal subsides into programs that have been shown to be very effective.

Okay, but that doesn't change the answer. To play along, we should 'move' the money into not having been borrowed at interest in the first place. Again, once we get our house in order and stop the insanity, that might be a great idea.

To get the 'house in order' as you suggest, then we will have to cut various parts of the budget. Assuming that there is still room in your balanced budget for programs like the EIC, then it is not mutually exclusive to both decrease the budget and increase the funding available to the EIC relative to welfare programs. If I take your approach literally, it suggests that we cannot even begin to talk about any budget changes unless I also find some way to decrease the deficit. That doesn't really address the merits of the idea, and is a poor approach to take because there may be lots of good things we can do to rearrange the way the budget is allocated without increasing the deficit. Ignoring them just because we have a deficit problem doesn't help.

You would have a point if it were the case you or I had 100% trust in the government doing what it says it will do. Obviously that is not the case. For me, first show us they can do one thing correctly, THEN we talk about doing other things. The gov't has a long history of gross inaccuracy when it comes to how much they say they will spend or save or cut. Howard Dean said last night in his experience, everything the government does ends up costing twice what they say it will, and will take twice as long, and when it's done it will still cost double again to get it going properly. I or anyone paying any kind of attention is highly likely to agree. Just look at Obamacare. The cuts we realize by cleaning up welfare and preventing abuse, if you suggest just moving that money elsewhere, those aren't really cuts, and won't do anything to the budget deficit which is already hurting our economy and jacking up interest rates in the form of a lower credit rating as well as shaking faith in foreign investors to the point we have to monetize our debt through QE, something we said we would never do so don't worry about our budget, and we also said it was a temporary program, until the economy comes back, which isn't happening, which drives our deficit even higher.

First, results on a simple task. Do that, I have no problem with looking at your suggestions. I think that's the third time I said this.

Mets, the government has very little trust when it comes to doing what it says it will do. Most Americans are fed up and the days of giving them the benefit of the doubt is over, thanks to Obamacare. People are done listening to 'plans to decrease the deficit' wasn't that the goal of Obamacare??? And here Obamacare is, costing triple what they said it would just to create the website, and after 3 years, THEN they bring the A-team in? And now they aren't even going to meet the new delayed fix date of Nov 1st. They are probably going to have to start over completely. That just doesn't fly anymore

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not talking about an increase. I am talking about moving some money from direct welfare into the EIC, at a one-to-one rate that does not increase spending. This is in response to your claim that federal subsidies do not encourage the poor to work. I am proposing shifting the federal subsides into programs that have been shown to be very effective.

Okay, but that doesn't change the answer. To play along, we should 'move' the money into not having been borrowed at interest in the first place. Again, once we get our house in order and stop the insanity, that might be a great idea.

To get the 'house in order' as you suggest, then we will have to cut various parts of the budget. Assuming that there is still room in your balanced budget for programs like the EIC, then it is not mutually exclusive to both decrease the budget and increase the funding available to the EIC relative to welfare programs. If I take your approach literally, it suggests that we cannot even begin to talk about any budget changes unless I also find some way to decrease the deficit. That doesn't really address the merits of the idea, and is a poor approach to take because there may be lots of good things we can do to rearrange the way the budget is allocated without increasing the deficit. Ignoring them just because we have a deficit problem doesn't help.

You would have a point if it were the case you are I had 100% trust in the government doing what it says it will do. Obviously that is not the case. For me, first show us they can do one thing correctly, THEN we talk about doing other things.

The EIC is working correctly. According to the Census Bureau, if the EIC had been counted as income in 2010, it would have lifted 5.4 million above the poverty line (I know this is a crude measure, but I hope it serves to demonstrate the point). A similar result was true in 2011. Because, up to a point, you earn more money from the credit by earning a higher salary, it creates an incentive to move up economically.



Shouldn't we be favoring the government programs that actually work right?

[mrswdk]

Your response to my questions was not a 'real response', so I don't see why I should bother arguing with you about whether or not your crude stereotypes are fair.

Try again: if it is not possible for 100% of the population to secure their own subsistence then what should be done with them? What positive gains do you think would be made by slashing government welfare and what is your reasoning?

It's not a crude stereotype at all, and how is it you are in a position to judge from China? It's the mainstream reality, just like it's mainstream that politicians in America think rape victims should carry a rapists baby to birth.

My post described what should not be done with them, and how what we are doing just creates more. For starters, we should stop the status quo of failed programs today. I don't think welfare programs should be slashed, but I do think we should 'introduce' accountability and cut way down on waste.

Can you agree at least we should start with cutting waste? Can we agree that someone who spends 300$ a month on cigarettes isn't really in dire need to survive? How about welfare recipients who go to the casino every weekend? Can we agree that aid we send to help is actually not helping and probably even make things worse?

Now lemme check what Mets daily bailout package says in your defense. I hope it's better than 'yeah,well you watch FOX!'

It's an incredibly crude stereotype. Unemployed moms with 7 babies and gambling, substance-addicted claimants? Unemployed people who spent $3,600 a year on cigarettes? Unless you can prove that this is the everyday reality then these folk demons will continue to be just that.

Do I agree that 'waste' should be cut? Why yes, I do agree that we shouldn't waste! What waste have you identified within the welfare system?

[mrswdk]

And yes, I can access Fox from China if I really get that desperate.

[Phatscotty]

Your response to my questions was not a 'real response', so I don't see why I should bother arguing with you about whether or not your crude stereotypes are fair.

Try again: if it is not possible for 100% of the population to secure their own subsistence then what should be done with them? What positive gains do you think would be made by slashing government welfare and what is your reasoning?

It's not a crude stereotype at all, and how is it you are in a position to judge from China? It's the mainstream reality, just like it's mainstream that politicians in America think rape victims should carry a rapists baby to birth.

My post described what should not be done with them, and how what we are doing just creates more. For starters, we should stop the status quo of failed programs today. I don't think welfare programs should be slashed, but I do think we should 'introduce' accountability and cut way down on waste.

Can you agree at least we should start with cutting waste? Can we agree that someone who spends 300$ a month on cigarettes isn't really in dire need to survive? How about welfare recipients who go to the casino every weekend? Can we agree that aid we send to help is actually not helping and probably even make things worse?

Now lemme check what Mets daily bailout package says in your defense. I hope it's better than 'yeah,well you watch FOX!'

It's an incredibly crude stereotype. Unemployed moms with 7 babies and gambling, substance-addicted claimants? Unemployed people who spent $3,600 a year on cigarettes? Unless you can prove that this is the everyday reality then these folk demons will continue to be just that.

Do I agree that 'waste' should be cut? Why yes, I do agree that we shouldn't waste! What waste have you identified within the welfare system?

You stereotype concerning me and FOX news is the only thing that is crude.

I can prove the abuse, they are people I know. I will bring them here to testify ASAP. So also, you will need to prove that there aren't any people who get their welfare check and blow it at the casino, that there aren't any people who sell their foodstamps 2 for 1's, that there aren't any people on welfare who smoked cigarettes. The poorer a person is, the more likely they are to smoke, and that is a fact.

I just identified the waste: gambling, tobacco, drugs, frivilous asnd profligate spending habits, selling food stamps. There are entire markets based around selling food stamps. Obviously, people who sell their food stamps do not need food stamps. Can you agree with that?

What I asked if you could agree with is a welfare recipient blowing their money at the casino is waste and that person should not get welfare.



Welfare abuse IS mainstream in America.

[Phatscotty]

I'm not talking about an increase. I am talking about moving some money from direct welfare into the EIC, at a one-to-one rate that does not increase spending. This is in response to your claim that federal subsidies do not encourage the poor to work. I am proposing shifting the federal subsides into programs that have been shown to be very effective.

Okay, but that doesn't change the answer. To play along, we should 'move' the money into not having been borrowed at interest in the first place. Again, once we get our house in order and stop the insanity, that might be a great idea.

To get the 'house in order' as you suggest, then we will have to cut various parts of the budget. Assuming that there is still room in your balanced budget for programs like the EIC, then it is not mutually exclusive to both decrease the budget and increase the funding available to the EIC relative to welfare programs. If I take your approach literally, it suggests that we cannot even begin to talk about any budget changes unless I also find some way to decrease the deficit. That doesn't really address the merits of the idea, and is a poor approach to take because there may be lots of good things we can do to rearrange the way the budget is allocated without increasing the deficit. Ignoring them just because we have a deficit problem doesn't help.

You would have a point if it were the case you are I had 100% trust in the government doing what it says it will do. Obviously that is not the case. For me, first show us they can do one thing correctly, THEN we talk about doing other things.

The EIC is working correctly. According to the Census Bureau, if the EIC had been counted as income in 2010, it would have lifted 5.4 million above the poverty line (I know this is a crude measure, but I hope it serves to demonstrate the point). A similar result was true in 2011. Because, up to a point, you earn more money from the credit by earning a higher salary, it creates an incentive to move up economically.



Shouldn't we be favoring the government programs that actually work right?

also, you can just print a million dollars for everyone, and everyone will be out of poverty, for a little while. After about a year, the same people who make bad decisions and don't value things they didn't earn will be right back in poverty.

Government subsidies do not solve poverty. It only covers it up.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not talking about an increase. I am talking about moving some money from direct welfare into the EIC, at a one-to-one rate that does not increase spending. This is in response to your claim that federal subsidies do not encourage the poor to work. I am proposing shifting the federal subsides into programs that have been shown to be very effective.

Okay, but that doesn't change the answer. To play along, we should 'move' the money into not having been borrowed at interest in the first place. Again, once we get our house in order and stop the insanity, that might be a great idea.

To get the 'house in order' as you suggest, then we will have to cut various parts of the budget. Assuming that there is still room in your balanced budget for programs like the EIC, then it is not mutually exclusive to both decrease the budget and increase the funding available to the EIC relative to welfare programs. If I take your approach literally, it suggests that we cannot even begin to talk about any budget changes unless I also find some way to decrease the deficit. That doesn't really address the merits of the idea, and is a poor approach to take because there may be lots of good things we can do to rearrange the way the budget is allocated without increasing the deficit. Ignoring them just because we have a deficit problem doesn't help.

You would have a point if it were the case you are I had 100% trust in the government doing what it says it will do. Obviously that is not the case. For me, first show us they can do one thing correctly, THEN we talk about doing other things.

The EIC is working correctly. According to the Census Bureau, if the EIC had been counted as income in 2010, it would have lifted 5.4 million above the poverty line (I know this is a crude measure, but I hope it serves to demonstrate the point). A similar result was true in 2011. Because, up to a point, you earn more money from the credit by earning a higher salary, it creates an incentive to move up economically.



Shouldn't we be favoring the government programs that actually work right?

also, you can just print a million dollars for everyone, and everyone will be out of poverty, for a little while.

Is that a response, or a dodge?

[Phatscotty]

I didn't see your last question.

But I think this is your point. If we throw money at it, it appears to make poverty go away. Trouble is, if you take the EIC away, the poverty returns. It sounds like a band aid to me, and for the last time, we don't have the money, and covering up problems by throwing money we don't have at the problems is the exact kind of bad decisions that get people in trouble in the first place. It's not fixing poverty, it's making poverty more comfortable.

[Phatscotty]

Just look at Obamacare. Rather than screwing around spending a billion dollars on a website that professionals in the private sector say they could have done it for a million dollars, we could have just given every person without insurance 25 years of paid for premiums. But that's not what Obama wants, he wants the power and the control that comes from the gov't running everything, that makes people thank Democrats and vote for them out of fear the evil Republicans are gonna take their free shit.

No, this government and this administration specifically are highly corrupt, intensely profligate, and extremely incompetent. I don't think we should give them another dime until they SHOW us they can get their act together. The Federal gov't took in a record income this year, so they are not short of money. We have a spending problem, and you won't get me to support increase in spending on anything. Certainly not any of this 'oh, we'll just make a cut here in a program that doesn't work and put the money into a program that Mets says works because a 'non-partisan' policy group who's board is full of Socialist and Progressives said it works" well that's what they always say Mets. And I know you do not see what I am talking about, and I know I'm not going to persuade you, and I know that no matter what you won't change your mind, and that no matter what whatever position you support you can find a graph showing what you want it to show, and whatever you oppose you can show a chart showing what you want it to show, and that you are one of the least objective posters here. I do not support massive redistribution programs. I support Liberty. All that money you feel is doing so good and is working to solve poverty, had to be taken from someone else.

Take a look at my chart. You should understand what I'm saying, even if you disagree.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Metsfanmax]

Certainly not any of this 'oh, we'll just make a cut here in a program that doesn't work and put the money into a program that Mets says works because a 'non-partisan' policy group who's board is full of Socialist and Progressives said it works" well that's what they always say Mets. And I know you do not see what I am talking about, and I know I'm not going to persuade you, and I know that no matter what you won't change your mind, and that no matter what whatever position you support you can find a graph showing what you want it to show, and whatever you oppose you can show a chart showing what you want it to show, and that you are one of the least objective posters here.

I was going to respond, but I'm done with you now.

[Phatscotty]

well, I looked up the board of directors. the national poverty center, the child defense fund, a couple real estate developers even...hmmmmm no bid contracts anyone? Oh yeah they will build all the government housing units for only double the cost!

[Phatscotty]

Certainly not any of this 'oh, we'll just make a cut here in a program that doesn't work and put the money into a program that Mets says works because a 'non-partisan' policy group who's board is full of Socialist and Progressives said it works" well that's what they always say Mets. And I know you do not see what I am talking about, and I know I'm not going to persuade you, and I know that no matter what you won't change your mind, and that no matter what whatever position you support you can find a graph showing what you want it to show, and whatever you oppose you can show a chart showing what you want it to show, and that you are one of the least objective posters here.

I was going to respond, but I'm done with you now.

That's fine, it's not like you don't know where I stand on redistribution of wealth, welfare, taxation, trust in government, socialism. Everything you are saying here has been said about every other program.

Bottom line, it doesn't get anymore inefficient and wasteful than a federal program. I know your mission here was to get me to say a government program works, and then use that in some way to pull some other issue into it and make me look like a hypocrite. You should already know I will say the money can be used far more efficiently, even if the program does work. And if you want me to acknowledge your point that giving money to poor people means they will have more money and be further from the poverty line, well that is a given. That's why I said you can just print a million dollars for everyone, but even that wouldn't solve poverty. So let's stop screwing around propping poverty up. Obviously we have been redistributing money for decades, even half a century. It has barely done jack to help people, and really what it has done is create a massive voting block of dependents who will vote for anyone who promised them a check.

Take away a welfare check from an abuser, they will have a job the next day.

[Metsfanmax]

Certainly not any of this 'oh, we'll just make a cut here in a program that doesn't work and put the money into a program that Mets says works because a 'non-partisan' policy group who's board is full of Socialist and Progressives said it works" well that's what they always say Mets. And I know you do not see what I am talking about, and I know I'm not going to persuade you, and I know that no matter what you won't change your mind, and that no matter what whatever position you support you can find a graph showing what you want it to show, and whatever you oppose you can show a chart showing what you want it to show, and that you are one of the least objective posters here.

I was going to respond, but I'm done with you now.

That's fine, it's not like you don't know where I stand on redistribution of wealth, welfare, taxation, trust in government, socialism. Everything you are saying here has been said about every other program.

The reason I'm done with you is precisely because I know all too well where you stand on these issues. That's because you use rhetoric instead of analysis. If every response to a government policy is 'we need to spend less money and we can't trust the government' then there is literally no reason to talk to you because you don't enrich the conversation. I'll speak to you again when (if) this changes.

[Phatscotty]

and I told you when it will change, repeatedly....and that is when the government can SHOW us they are getting their house in order, when they BEGIN to hold people accountable for waste.

This administration....I'm not supporting anything. People are only beginning to see how big a liar Obama and Reid and Pelosi are. Even those who are emotionally attached to the president are finally starting to get a clue. This is already going down a the worst administration in history, and it has the biggest flops, blunders, and amount of waste and total lack of transparency to accompany it.

[Lootifer]

Take away a welfare check from an abuser, they will have a job the next day.

More likely you're TV will magically disappear, and there will be an eerily similar one for sale at the local pawn/secondhand shop.

[Phatscotty]

Take away a welfare check from an abuser, they will have a job the next day.

More likely you're TV will magically disappear, and there will be an eerily similar one for sale at the local pawn/secondhand shop.

Luckily, I am not frightened by the Lefty threats that if we don't give them free shit they are going to turn to crime and I will pay a lot more in the end. Talk about 'extremist threats' and 'holding a gun to the American people head' and 'making ransom demands'....

[mrswdk]

No no no. Your mistake here is that you are using anecdotes to make sweeping statements about entire systems (where've I seen that on this forum before?). 'People I know' does not equal systemic failure. I can simply present some anecdotes of hard-working, thrifty families who are dependent on welfare and we are back to square one.

So, back to my original question: is welfare (which is already pretty niggardly in America) really encouraging legions of people to squander their lives, or is it mainly being used to support hard-pressed families?

And what do we do with the surplus citizens who will never have the opportunity to earn their own living?

[Phatscotty]

No no no. Your mistake here is that you are using anecdotes to make sweeping statements about entire systems (where've I seen that on this forum before?). 'People I know' does not equal systemic failure. I can simply present some anecdotes of hard-working, thrifty families who are dependent on welfare and we are back to square one.

So, back to my original question: is welfare (which is already pretty niggardly in America) really encouraging legions of people to squander their lives, or is it mainly being used to support hard-pressed families?

And what do we do with the surplus citizens who will never have the opportunity to earn their own living?

all first hand evidence that flies directly in the face of your statements and shows the exact opposite of what you say is anecdotal. (did you really need to use the N word here?)

If you want to make the case that people on welfare do not smoke cigarettes, abuse alcohol, or gamble their welfare checks away, go right ahead. You would be committing credibility suicide. People here know better. And reading you we know you either have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, or just plain trolling, or both. (do you even know how much cigarettes cost in America? If you don't, you aren't even in a position to dispute the facts)

I already answered your question. Welfare abuse is mainstream in America.

I don't agree that there are surplus citizens who will never have the opportunity to earn their own living. You are going to have to prove that, and then of course it will just be anecdotal, right? Why do you even post

[mrswdk]

So what do you suggest the 7-8% portion of America's population that is unemployed do? Should they all go out and gets jobs, or start millions of exciting new businesses?

But yeah, you got me. I hear your unspecified anecdotes and I accept that America's welfare system is mostly used by scumbags who just want your taxes so they can buy drugs and have litters of fat, stupid children. We should choke them off and watch them starve. Good riddance.

[Lootifer]

niggardly is a genuine word. he did use it in the wrong context though, he meant niggly

[Phatscotty]

niggardly is a genuine word. he did use it in the wrong context though, he meant niggly

Awful lot of cover being provided for Mrs. I know if I said it, you would be all "I GOT HIM! I GOT HIM!"

I'm sure there is no connection between the word on the subject of welfare.

Lootifer, have you ever made a post about 'racist code'? Like, say, the whole 'food stamp president' thing? Like I always have said and continues to be played out, being on the Left means a different set of rules and never having to say sorry.

[Phatscotty]

But yeah, you got me. I hear your unspecified anecdotes and I accept that America's welfare system is mostly used by scumbags who just want your taxes so they can buy drugs and have litters of fat, stupid children. We should choke them off and watch them starve. Good riddance.

Jumping to the extreme and concluding everyone will just die in the streets....nah....didn't see that one coming at all.