Author Topic: US Politics  (Read 44098 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Unknown Caller

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 18837
  • TORIIIIIINOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Re: US Politics
« Reply #105 on: January 01, 2013, 05:03:34 PM »
You keep saying that, and you keep refusing to provide the slightest scrap of proof that what you say is true beyond telling us how big military bases are which doesn't even slightly address it. (Incidentally, Texas doesn't remotely prove your point; it's actually not a net taker like most red states, it breaks even - this would seem to further weaken your case-you-refuse-to-ever-provide-evidence-for)

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2301
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #106 on: January 01, 2013, 05:16:15 PM »

The Moocher Index You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

1. Vermont (as blue as you can get)
2. Mississippi (as Red as you can get)
3. Maine
4. New York
5. Mass
6. Alaska (Due to supporting eskimo lands and Indian reservations)
7. Rhode Island
8. Hawaii
9. Connecticut
10. Arkansas

The Center for Immigration Studies recently put out a study arguing that immigration has had negative effects on California. One of their measures was a comparison of how many people in the state were receiving some form of welfare compared to other states. I found that data (see Table 3 of the report) very interesting, but not because of the immigration debate (I’ll leave others to debate that topic). Instead, I wanted to get a better understanding of the variations in government dependency. Is there a greater willingness to sign up for income redistribution programs, all other things being equal, from one state to another? The “all other things being equal” caveat is very important, of course, since the comparison produced by CIS may simply be an indirect measure of the factors that determine welfare eligibility. One obvious (albeit crude) way of addressing this problem is to subtract each state’s poverty rate to get a measure of how many non-poor people are signed up for income-redistribution programs. Let’s call this the Moocher Index.

A few quick observations. Why is Vermont (by far) the state with the largest proportion of non-poor people signed up for welfare programs? I have no idea, but maybe this explains why they elect people like Bernie Sanders. But it’s not just Vermont. Four of the top five states on the Moocher Index are from the Northeast, as are six of the top nine. Mississippi also scores poorly, coming in second, but many other southern states do well. Indeed, if we reversed the ranking and did a Self-Reliance Index, Virginia, Florida, and Georgia would score in the top 10. Nevada, arguably the nation’s most libertarian state, is the state with the lowest number of non-poor people signed up for welfare.


Most welfare cases:


# 1        California:    1,085,627     
 
# 2        New York:    341,004     
 
# 3        Texas:    333,435     
 
# 4        Pennsylvania:    207,429     
 
# 5        Michigan:    202,469     
 
# 6        Ohio:    188,108     
 
# 7        Tennessee:    180,466     
 
# 8        Washington:    140,721     

 
# 9        Indiana:    140,571     
 
 
# 10        Georgia:    132,003

Offline The Unknown Caller

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 18837
  • TORIIIIIINOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Re: US Politics
« Reply #107 on: January 01, 2013, 05:52:19 PM »
Okay, so you've now decided to switch to purely discussing who recieves welfare, which... isn't actually about who is a net federal taker or not. Which Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare are faaaar more important to than welfare.

It's almost as though you knew you couldn't find the slightest evidence to defend your original claim and so are now constantly trying to change it to one you can defend. (Yes, yes, this is where you claim that this is REALLY what you were saying all along etc. You're not great at this.)
« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 05:54:47 PM by The Unknown Caller »

Offline Inishfree

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5815
Re: US Politics
« Reply #108 on: January 01, 2013, 09:08:24 PM »
Thanks TUC and Max for your replies.  Middle class has changed greatly, since I was young.  There seems to be a greater divide between modest comfort and poverty.

From what has been posted, I am living in American poverty.  I have a college degree in Fine Arts.  I have found out lately, since my degree was earned before 1997.  It will not transfer into any higher programs.   At my age, I would have to start from scratch.  Would I qualify for a government grant?

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2301
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #109 on: January 02, 2013, 06:19:57 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Okay, so you've now decided to switch to purely discussing who recieves welfare, which... isn't actually about who is a net federal taker or not. Which Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare are faaaar more important to than welfare.

It's almost as though you knew you couldn't find the slightest evidence to defend your original claim and so are now constantly trying to change it to one you can defend. (Yes, yes, this is where you claim that this is REALLY what you were saying all along etc. You're not great at this.)

I have found and posted plenty of evidence you just lack the ability to understand it.


BTW Taxes went up on everybody today!!!!! That should make TUC happy --Now before you lie and show your ignorance by saying no they didn't-- The Democrats refused to include the pay roll tax holiday which raises taxes on every person that has a job in fact it hurts the poor more as this is very regressive tax. But remember the Dems don't care they just want the press.

Offline The Unknown Caller

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 18837
  • TORIIIIIINOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Re: US Politics
« Reply #110 on: January 02, 2013, 06:41:48 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Okay, so you've now decided to switch to purely discussing who recieves welfare, which... isn't actually about who is a net federal taker or not. Which Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare are faaaar more important to than welfare.

It's almost as though you knew you couldn't find the slightest evidence to defend your original claim and so are now constantly trying to change it to one you can defend. (Yes, yes, this is where you claim that this is REALLY what you were saying all along etc. You're not great at this.)

I have found and posted plenty of evidence you just lack the ability to understand it.


BTW Taxes went up on everybody today!!!!! That should make TUC happy --Now before you lie and show your ignorance by saying no they didn't-- The Democrats refused to include the pay roll tax holiday which raises taxes on every person that has a job in fact it hurts the poor more as this is very regressive tax. But remember the Dems don't care they just want the press.

This is hilarious. Yes, taxes went up on everyone... because Republicans killed the Democratic effort to extend the payroll tax credit! You're outright lying by claiming that Democrats refused to include it; it was in Obama's offer and the GOP took it out!  Who exactly is showing their ignorance here? Because this really is just complete ignorance here. Republicans fought for the Estate Tax to stay low, they fought for taxes on the rich to stay low, and they fought hard against cutting taxes for the poor and middle class.

And then they wonder why they've lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 06:44:12 PM by The Unknown Caller »

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2301
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #111 on: January 02, 2013, 07:20:56 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Okay, so you've now decided to switch to purely discussing who recieves welfare, which... isn't actually about who is a net federal taker or not. Which Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare are faaaar more important to than welfare.

It's almost as though you knew you couldn't find the slightest evidence to defend your original claim and so are now constantly trying to change it to one you can defend. (Yes, yes, this is where you claim that this is REALLY what you were saying all along etc. You're not great at this.)

I have found and posted plenty of evidence you just lack the ability to understand it.


BTW Taxes went up on everybody today!!!!! That should make TUC happy --Now before you lie and show your ignorance by saying no they didn't-- The Democrats refused to include the pay roll tax holiday which raises taxes on every person that has a job in fact it hurts the poor more as this is very regressive tax. But remember the Dems don't care they just want the press.

This is hilarious. Yes, taxes went up on everyone... because Republicans killed the Democratic effort to extend the payroll tax credit! You're outright lying by claiming that Democrats refused to include it; it was in Obama's offer and the GOP took it out!  Who exactly is showing their ignorance here? Because this really is just complete ignorance here. Republicans fought for the Estate Tax to stay low, they fought for taxes on the rich to stay low, and they fought hard against cutting taxes for the poor and middle class.

And then they wonder why they've lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.

No you are wrong it was no tin the Senate bill Biden didn't want it in

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2301
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #112 on: January 03, 2013, 02:25:48 PM »
An article by Victor David Hanson (It confirms a lot of which what I posted earlier)

There is a New Year stampede developing that we have not seen for a long time.

Gun stores are swamped with panicking customers. They are looking for handguns, semiautomatic rifles, and as much ammunition as they can afford. But buyers are not just camouflaged hunters, conspiracy theorists, and gun hoarders. Instead, many of those purchasing firearms and ammo are so-called ordinary people, convinced that this administration will soon begin to centrally register — and then ban — far more than assault rifles.

There were probably lots of reasons why Adam Lanza shot 26 innocent children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. But so far the government and media are not focusing much on his prior obsessions with violent video games, on society’s seeming inability to hospitalize the unstable, or on the crude violence peddled in Hollywood and through popular music that portrays shooting people as a sort of cheap fantasy without consequences.

Instead, the administration is zeroing in on the ability of Lanza’s mother to legally buy semiautomatic weapons that her son then stole to murder her and the schoolchildren and employees. The result is a pandemic of fear that the Second Amendment will be reinterpreted and redefined as never before.

With the resolution of the fiscal cliff, taxes on those who make more than $400,000 are going to rise considerably as they will revert to the Clinton-era rates. But this time the landscape is radically different.

There will not be much deficit reduction and certainly no balanced budgets, adding insult to injury for those who must pay the government far more.

The new, higher rates come on top of state-income-tax hikes in much of the country — all in addition to further increases in capital-gains taxes, new Obamacare taxes, and much steeper inheritance taxes. The result is not just a 3 percent to 5 percent increase on the well-off, but for some payers aggregate hikes of 7 percent to 8 percent or even more.

No wonder many companies are rushing to pay dividends now to beat rising capital-gains-tax rates. Likewise, many individuals are considering expensive new life-insurance policies to protect their heirs from losing small farms and businesses to steep new federal estate taxes. Red states will attract even more refugees fleeing high-tax and near-insolvent blue states.


Most Americans are already seeing their health-insurance premiums shoot up in anticipation of the 2014 federal takeover of health care. To pay for the vast Obamacare programs — whose details still remain a mystery for most — money will be raised in all sorts of bizarre ways, from reducing Medicare coverage to taxing new medical devices and some drug makers.

A sense of foreboding hangs over the currently insured. Almost everyone is unsure whether the new federal statutes will still cover currently covered procedures — or whether they will be rationed or curtailed altogether. Expect many people to schedule check-ups and major medical procedures in 2013 before Obamacare kicks in.

There is a common denominator that underlies all this multifaceted uncertainty. Fairly or not, there is a sense that those who played by the rules and did well have instead done something wrong, or at least are under suspicion — and it is now time for their government to seek atonement from them. Worse still is the dread that the government’s new policies and taxes will not solve problems but may make them worse and prompt even more government engineering.

For the law-abiding gun owner, the federal government may make it more difficult to buy legal arms — even though there is little evidence that gun restrictions per se have stopped shootings, and some evidence that states with lots of armed citizens have lower crime rates. If the semiautomatic-rifle ban does not work, what gun will be banned next to stop violence?

Most well-off taxpayers add up their local, state, federal, payroll, and capital-gains taxes and feel they really have paid their “fair share.” They all know that handing over more won’t solve the fiscal crisis, but instead will only empower more government deficit spending. If new taxes won’t stop deficits, what’s next?


Finally, those who budgeted and provided their own health insurance feel that the new restrictions and higher taxes on their coverage are the costs of subsidizing many who could have bought, but chose not to buy, their own health insurance.

The ability of citizens to protect their households, to keep at least half their earnings safe from various government taxes, and to use their own judgment in making health-care decisions is central to a free people. No wonder the fear that a radically growing government will infringe on such traditional freedoms is stampeding millions of panicky Americans in all directions.

Offline The Unknown Caller

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 18837
  • TORIIIIIINOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Re: US Politics
« Reply #113 on: January 03, 2013, 05:25:04 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

No you are wrong it was no tin the Senate bill Biden didn't want it in

Sorry, but this is either a lie or just ignorant depending on how charitable you want to be.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login (They later caved)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login - Please note that again, extending the tax cut was explicitly in the President's proposal.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login Please note again, in Boehner's ideal world, his OPENING gambit... there is no payroll tax cut.

This is pretty open and shut; Democrats wanted the payroll tax cut - and indeed, they introduced it in the first place! Republicans didn't want it, they fought extending it, and because of their opposition it was dropped from the final plan. Sorry. 

...And then you followed up by just quoting a right wing academic who doesn't even specialise in politics and bolding completely unsubstantiated claims he makes. Well played.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 05:27:49 PM by The Unknown Caller »

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2301
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #114 on: January 03, 2013, 06:50:51 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

No you are wrong it was no tin the Senate bill Biden didn't want it in

Sorry, but this is either a lie or just ignorant depending on how charitable you want to be.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login (They later caved)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login - Please note that again, extending the tax cut was explicitly in the President's proposal.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login Please note again, in Boehner's ideal world, his OPENING gambit... there is no payroll tax cut.

This is pretty open and shut; Democrats wanted the payroll tax cut - and indeed, they introduced it in the first place! Republicans didn't want it, they fought extending it, and because of their opposition it was dropped from the final plan. Sorry. 

...And then you followed up by just quoting a right wing academic who doesn't even specialise in politics and bolding completely unsubstantiated claims he makes. Well played.

First off--what you posted means nothing--this is not 2011 or even Nov 12 and the Senate Bill pushed and written by Biden did not have the payroll tax in it-- The dems did not want it in. They paid lip service to it so folks like you would say look the do care (They don't)

Second I will take VDH's word over yours

I am sorry you don't understand that premiums are already going up even your lib buddy JT said his are going up. But like most libs you don't know how the economy works.

BTW he was right the other things I highlighted also.

Lets see on hand I have TUC a Sophomore in college vs:

Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, political essayist and former classics professor

O and BTW VDH is a Democrat, a Conservative Democrat but a registered Dem
« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 06:52:57 PM by Maximus »

Offline The Unknown Caller

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 18837
  • TORIIIIIINOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Re: US Politics
« Reply #115 on: January 03, 2013, 07:36:06 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
First off--what you posted means nothing--this is not 2011 or even Nov 12 and the Senate Bill pushed and written by Biden did not have the payroll tax in it-- The dems did not want it in. They paid lip service to it so folks like you would say look the do care (They don't)

!? Now you just appear to be confused. O.o The Senate bill wasn't 'written by Biden' - it was a compromise worked out between Biden and McConnell. That means that both got some things and lost some things. Dems lost the payroll tax. Your argument is truly bizarre here. So to be clear here, Democrats introduced the payroll tax cut even though they didn't want it, extended it even though they didn't want it and put it in their proposal even though they didn't want to, and then Boehner opposed it and didn't put it in his proposal even though he did want it. Again, if the Democrats' initial proposal had passed, the payroll tax would have been extended; if the Republicans' initial 'best case scenario' proposal had, it wouldn't have. ...Proving that Democrats didn't want it and Republicans did? Apparently?

...Are you living in some strange backwards world in which everyone says the opposite of they really want?

Quote
I am sorry you don't understand that premiums are already going up even your lib buddy JT said his are going up. But like most libs you don't know how the economy works.

Yes, they are... as they do every year. They're actually going up by less now than they were in the earlier 2000s. No-one said they weren't going up, but the ACA certainly isn't making them.

And yeah, sorry, you quoting one academic who specialises in something else but occasionally agrees with you isn't really impressing anyone.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 07:43:04 PM by The Unknown Caller »

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2301
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #116 on: January 03, 2013, 09:47:09 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
First off--what you posted means nothing--this is not 2011 or even Nov 12 and the Senate Bill pushed and written by Biden did not have the payroll tax in it-- The dems did not want it in. They paid lip service to it so folks like you would say look the do care (They don't)

!? Now you just appear to be confused. O.o The Senate bill wasn't 'written by Biden' - it was a compromise worked out between Biden and McConnell. That means that both got some things and lost some things. Dems lost the payroll tax. Your argument is truly bizarre here. So to be clear here, Democrats introduced the payroll tax cut even though they didn't want it, extended it even though they didn't want it and put it in their proposal even though they didn't want to, and then Boehner opposed it and didn't put it in his proposal even though he did want it. Again, if the Democrats' initial proposal had passed, the payroll tax would have been extended; if the Republicans' initial 'best case scenario' proposal had, it wouldn't have. ...Proving that Democrats didn't want it and Republicans did? Apparently?

...Are you living in some strange backwards world in which everyone says the opposite of they really want?

Quote
I am sorry you don't understand that premiums are already going up even your lib buddy JT said his are going up. But like most libs you don't know how the economy works.

Yes, they are... as they do every year. They're actually going up by less now than they were in the earlier 2000s. No-one said they weren't going up, but the ACA certainly isn't making them.

And yeah, sorry, you quoting one academic who specialises in something else but occasionally agrees with you isn't really impressing anyone.

What color is the sky in your world????

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2301
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #117 on: January 03, 2013, 09:54:14 PM »
More curious

The "fiscal cliff" legislation passed this week included $76 billion in special-interest tax credits for the likes of General Electric, Hollywood and even Captain Morgan. But these subsidies weren't the fruit of eleventh-hour lobbying conducted on the cliff's edge -- they were crafted back in August in a Senate committee, and they sat dormant until the White House reportedly insisted on them this week.

A Senate aide familiar with the cliff negotiations tells me the White House wanted permanent extensions of a whole slew of corporate tax credits. When Senate Republicans said no, "the White House insisted that the exact language" of the Baucus bill be included in the fiscal cliff deal. "They were absolutely insistent," another aide tells me. (The White House did not return requests for comment.)


HMMM.... so the Whitehouse sold out the Middle and the working class for special interests.

Offline The Unknown Caller

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 18837
  • TORIIIIIINOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Re: US Politics
« Reply #118 on: January 04, 2013, 06:13:41 AM »
This is now getting beyond parody. You literally have absolutely nothing to support your made up crap switching the party's position in the payroll tax cut. You haven't disputed that Obama introduced it or that Republicans fought its extension or that it was in Obama's proposal r that it wasn't in the GOP proposal. You're so utterly blinded by your preconceptions that you just assumed Obama must have wanted to raise middle class taxes and now that you discover how abysmally wrong you are, you can't even engage over it anymore.

So again, where exactly is your evidence that the GOP wanted it and Obama opposed it?

Offline Maximus

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2301
  • Some days you wake up in the army
Re: US Politics
« Reply #119 on: January 04, 2013, 08:19:07 AM »
One more time for: The Senate Bill that was proposed by the dems did not have the payroll tax credit it in; why?

It did have pork for rum producers, GE, algae growers etc, etc--why?

When asked how the bill got thr/ the Senate Biden said "Me"

In the Catholic sense it would be a sin of "omission" at the best.


One of theses days you will understand the difference between middle income and middle class, I think you have them confused.