Quote from: Stephe on December 03, 2012, 12:07:29 AM
You assume I am a lower income person (bad move). Yes raising the tax "for the wealthy" would make my taxes go up.

Unless you're a politician I was not referring to you. I just think when you have some politicians that don't even file their taxes,or after getting out of office speak up about others paying higher tax rates but do not do so themselves are a bit disingenuous.

Quote from: Stephe on December 03, 2012, 12:07:29 AM

And do you honestly believe all people on Gov assistance are buying steak and lobster?

There are enough that do,that it gives the appearance that things are out of whack. It's a lack of accountability. It's hard to really know what is happening with a person in need if you have five or six different case workers trying to help one person and you have overlap with the different programs.

Quote from: Stephe on December 03, 2012, 12:07:29 AM

As far as "put your money where your mouth is", last year I gave $5,000 to the local homeless shelter, what exactly have you done to help the poor lately? I also volunteer 10-15 hours a week tutoring under privileged kids. Don't assume when someone says "The wealthy should be taxed more" it's a low income person wanting someone else to take care of this. And if you don't believe there is a SERIOUS problem with the % of children living in below poverty level conditions, you really should get out more often. I find it comical you seem to judge poverty as people dying from starvation.

Good for you,you are in a situation where you can do that. I never said that it was the poor talking about it. Do you not find it ironic that guys like Warren Buffet can talk about taxes being raised on the rich yet will turn around and fight the government on their business about their tax return? Or the fact that they claim every deduction they are entitled to,instead of claiming half of their deductions. The government does not require any one to claim every single deduction,the deductions one chooses to claim is up to the person filing the taxes. Income yes,deductions no.

Sorry Stephe, I am speaking from the other side of this. With my income,five out the last seven years I would be considered under the poverty level. I take very serious one thing,whatever I do it is between me,the Lord and the person,and is no one else's business. Just because my income level is in that range does it mean I am actually in poverty? No one looking at where I live,what I drive,and what I have,could ever say that I am truly in poverty. I am cash poor but not in poverty.

The point was that we have gotten to the point where our definition of what poverty is in this country is not the same as it was in the late 1800's,1930's or even in comparison to places such as the Congo,Zaire,or other third world countries. Are the basic needs being met? Do they have air,water,food,clothing,shelter, basic transportation,and a chance for education?

Coming from the other side,try living and raising a family of four on minimum wage. Been there did that,I do know what it's like and what it takes to get out of it. At one point we were three months behind in rent and electric bills. Our church at that time did help us with the rent. Basic transportation $100 junkers,at least two of them should have been junked before we got them. (ran them till they died) We did get some help but still ended going bankrupt,got two new jobs and at one point was working full time at both up to 120 hours a week,paid off the bankruptcy six months early. Being poor sucks,no two ways about it. We may not have had much but we had clothes on our backs,food on the table,a roof over our heads,jobs,and each other. We had what we needed not what we wanted.

One of the concepts I truly believe in is this "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Food pantries and other short term things like that do a good job for those caught in a temporary bind,but they really can not address the long term in that they in and of themselves break the cycle of dependency. It's why I really like the concept of Heifer International. Provide a means for someone to learn how to make an income,pass on some of what you received as it grows,and break the cycle.

Quote from: SarahM777 on December 02, 2012, 05:44:57 AM
Perhaps part of the perceived problems come from the times when people that are working,whom are struggling and paying taxes see those who are on government assistance can go into a grocery store and get steak,lobster and other higher end food stuffs and they can only afford ground chuck.

What? Govt. assistance is nowhere near enough to afford that kind of stuff, unless it's on a super sale or something. 

If it matters, I don't think poverty should mean people dying from starvation. Poverty definitions should be more lenient because that would indicate that someone is in potential of having a problem before the problem becomes serious.

Plus, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a couple of desires as long as they aren't excessive, such as how the government went into a financial crisis because people took loans on houses they couldn't dream of affording. Saying that everyone should just get over wanting anything because you did is like me telling you to stop complaining about how hard multi-variable calculus is simply because I find it to be easy.   

Quote from: DianaP on December 03, 2012, 03:13:05 PM
What? Govt. assistance is nowhere near enough to afford that kind of stuff, unless it's on a super sale or something. 

I have seen it first hand. One of my brothers and one of my sisters were doing just that. They knew how to game the system. I have also seen those who have loaded up their grocery carts and pay for them all using their food stamps. It's not in all cases but it does happen.

Quote from: DianaP on December 03, 2012, 03:13:05 PM

If it matters, I don't think poverty should mean people dying from starvation. Poverty definitions should be more lenient because that would indicate that someone is in potential of having a problem before the problem becomes serious.

If I came across that way I do apologize because that is far from what I mean. People need far more than just food. I do agree needs include air,food,water,shelter,clothing,transportation of some form,something a bit better than just basic education,and access to some form of health care. One of the problems is taking a single figure and applying it across the board. Does $11,000 go as far in New York City,as it does in Milwaukee,WI, or does either go as far as it would in a place like Butte,MT?

Quote from: DianaP on December 03, 2012, 03:13:05 PM

Plus, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a couple of desires as long as they aren't excessive, such as how the government went into a financial crisis because people took loans on houses they couldn't dream of affording. Saying that everyone should just get over wanting anything because you did is like me telling you to stop complaining about how hard multi-variable calculus is simply because I find it to be easy.   

I still had wants,but sometimes those wants have to be put on hold. Just because I would like a Martin D-45 Authentic 1942,Brazilian Rosewood 6 string acoustic guitar at $59,999 doesn't mean someone else should fund it for me. Nor does it mean that one should expect taxpayers to fund wants. And the question is where do you draw the line between needs and wants? I have no problem with the government taxing for the needs to be met,I have a hard time with the wants.

Quote from: SarahM777 on December 03, 2012, 05:01:02 PM
I still had wants,but sometimes those wants have to be put on hold. Just because I would like a Martin D-45 Authentic 1942,Brazilian Rosewood 6 string acoustic guitar at $59,999 doesn't mean someone else should fund it for me. Nor does it mean that one should expect taxpayers to fund wants. And the question is where do you draw the line between needs and wants? I have no problem with the government taxing for the needs to be met,I have a hard time with the wants.

I think we can agree on that one. 

I would like a Martin D-45 Authentic 1942,Brazilian Rosewood 6 string acoustic guitar at $59,999 doesn't mean someone else should fund it for me.

If you only want one no-one is going to fund it, because it's a completely unnecessary expense.  If you need it there are lots of ways to fund it, and yeah, you can get the government to pitch in, because there is only one way you are going to need it, and that's because your making music (specifically recording - it's not like your going to take that on the road) where the cost of such an instrument is justified.  And, it's cost is justified as a business expense it's hence a tax deduction.

But where do you cross the line between meeting needs and meetings wants? Is it one outfit,two,five,ten? Is it one,two,or three coats and the same number of pairs of shoes? Is it having food for one day,a week,six months,or a year? Is it employable education or an education that goes above and beyond that?

I know this may sound crazy but what if more was put into preventative health care? Two of the biggest problems with health in the US is due to lack of exercise and poor diet. Part of it I believe could be dealt with for about $15 billion but in the long run it would save multiple times that amount.
Solve half of it by providing a wii and wii fit for every household. (What's $15 billion in the US government budget anyways) I think these types of things would be money far better spent than dealing with the consequences,which is far more often to cost far more in the long run.

Quote from: SarahM777 on December 03, 2012, 05:50:51 AM

The point was that we have gotten to the point where our definition of what poverty is in this country is not the same as it was in the late 1800's,1930's or even in comparison to places such as the Congo,Zaire,or other third world countries. Are the basic needs being met? Do they have air,water,food,clothing,shelter, basic transportation,and a chance for education?

No one was saying the US is below 3rd world countries, I was talking about developed countries. And for most people "below poverty level" usually means the above things on your list are not being met. You even stated if the church hadn't helped you out you would have been homeless. And most kids living in those conditions are going to have a tough time with education, especially if they don't have enough to eat, are homeless etc. And sure, there are people who "work the system" but I doubt that is more than a small % of the people on gov assistance. There are slimy people looking for the easy way out everywhere and you can't punish the majority of the population trying to stop those people. It would be no different to say "Lets throw everyone in jail because some people shop lift" as a way of stopping that.

No one was saying the US is below 3rd world countries
There are places and populations inside the United States that are basically 3rd World, and they are growing.  Some like the really impoverished Native reservations have been like that for over 100 years now.  I've watched in a combination of disbelief and horror over the past 20 years as the homeless population has mushroomed and now seems on the verge of becoming a permanent and intractable condition.  There are many things that can be done to change that, but they take effort and money and no one seems to think it's worth it anymore.



Two of the biggest problems with health in the US is due to lack of exercise and poor diet
Yeah, and that's a totally self-inflicted wound.  And I should care why?  And moreover - and here's where a huge part of the conservative argument worked, at least back when they let non-insane people articulate it - why are they now entitled to my money because they were lazy and got fat and couldn't be bothered to eat right?  So their life sucks now.  So what?  And, most of the people I've personally known who have been successful at changing that condition in their lives needed nothing more than the basic will power to stop vegging and get up off the couch and a pair of shoes to start walking.

Quote from: tekla on December 05, 2012, 12:50:29 AM


Two of the biggest problems with health in the US is due to lack of exercise and poor diet
Yeah, and that's a totally self-inflicted wound.  And I should care why?  And moreover - and here's where a huge part of the conservative argument worked, at least back when they let non-insane people articulate it - why are they now entitled to my money because they were lazy and got fat and couldn't be bothered to eat right?  So their life sucks now.  So what?  And, most of the people I've personally known who have been successful at changing that condition in their lives needed nothing more than the basic will power to stop vegging and get up off the couch and a pair of shoes to start walking.

But the problem is that you already are to a point funding them. Through insurance premiums and through taxes. Isn't that what insurance does take healthy people paying into a system to fund unhealthy people? Doesn't Medicare and Medicaid do so also? If so you are paying for them whether you like it or not. (I do not mean all that use those have had an unhealthy lifestyle)

But take a hypothetical,I smoke and should get lung cancer. Should I then expect you by paying into insurance to cover my treatments because of my lifestyle,just because I can't afford them on my own? Am I not the one that made that choice? Is it not the consequence of my actions? Shouldn't I have to deal with them? (I can say this because I do still smoke) I can not in any way expect that you would take care of something that is by my own personal choice. If you choose to out of care for me that's one thing,but to force you to do so is just not right.

Quote from: Stephe on December 05, 2012, 12:03:20 AM
No one was saying the US is below 3rd world countries, I was talking about developed countries. And for most people "below poverty level" usually means the above things on your list are not being met. You even stated if the church hadn't helped you out you would have been homeless. And most kids living in those conditions are going to have a tough time with education, especially if they don't have enough to eat, are homeless etc. And sure, there are people who "work the system" but I doubt that is more than a small % of the people on gov assistance. There are slimy people looking for the easy way out everywhere and you can't punish the majority of the population trying to stop those people. It would be no different to say "Lets throw everyone in jail because some people shop lift" as a way of stopping that.

I do agree. I just think that if some of the system was tweaked to be more effective, simplified,
and not duplicated services. I would not be surprised to find out that as much as 20 - 25% of the US budget is tied up in waste,fraud, and inefficiencies. But it seems like those issues are never really tackled. If it so we could do so much more with what is being paid into the US treasury.

I am not advocating getting rid of the programs,I just think changing some things could make it better.

I am not saying that poverty doesn't exist in his country,far from it. But we have come a long ways from what it once was. There is a lot more to be done. Tekla is right we do have other areas besides the reservations that do live close to or are in 3rd world situations. Some areas of the Appalachians,some areas of the  South,it's not just in the cities. And can we really expect the government to do it all or does some of it need to be on a one to one level? Is it just the government that is suppose to take care of it all?

Quote from: SarahM777 on December 05, 2012, 05:57:11 AM
I do agree. I just think that if some of the system was tweaked to be more effective, simplified,
and not duplicated services. I would not be surprised to find out that as much as 20 - 25% of the US budget is tied up in waste,fraud, and inefficiencies. But it seems like those issues are never really tackled. If it so we could do so much more with what is being paid into the US treasury.

I am not advocating getting rid of the programs,I just think changing some things could make it better.

I am not saying that poverty doesn't exist in his country,far from it. But we have come a long ways from what it once was. There is a lot more to be done. Tekla is right we do have other areas besides the reservations that do live close to or are in 3rd world situations. Some areas of the Appalachians,some areas of the  South,it's not just in the cities. And can we really expect the government to do it all or does some of it need to be on a one to one level? Is it just the government that is suppose to take care of it all?

Well we had no problem spending 1 trillion in Iraq, much of which was spent rebuilding what we just blew up... 

Quote from: Stephe on December 05, 2012, 09:29:47 AM
Well we had no problem spending 1 trillion in Iraq, much of which was spent rebuilding what we just blew up... 

Nothing like bombing someones else's country when we have major issues here. The only good thing is that the defense contractors kept busy.

That money was borrowed. A trillion dollars owed to China and some other countries. 

Quote from: DianaP on December 05, 2012, 03:02:55 PM
That money was borrowed. A trillion dollars owed to China and some other countries. 

And we are going to be paying it off for years. And we will end up questioning the wisdom of the decision,questioning the cost of that decision,finding out the long term consequences of that decision,and wondering if it all really made that much of a difference.  And did we really learn anything from the French,the British and the Soviet Union from the way they did things in those areas. (IE Vietnam,Afghanistan and the Middle East)

I'm moving back to Ecuador...

It's not all bad,it's just a very difficult time that will take wisdom to get through it.

Quote from: SarahM777 on December 05, 2012, 06:37:36 PM
It's not all bad,it's just a very difficult time that will take wisdom to get through it.

*Thinks about American politicians*

Yeah, I'm moving back to Ecuador...

Quote from: DianaP on December 05, 2012, 07:01:43 PM
*Thinks about American politicians*

Yeah, I'm moving back to Ecuador...

Good point. 

Quote from: SarahM777 on December 05, 2012, 05:43:01 PM
And we are going to be paying it off for years.

They'll never pay it off. Never. I say "they" because I don't feel at all associated with the decisions National politicians make. I certainly don't approve. There's no way it's mathematically possible unless they suddenly close all their military bases around the world or something similarly drastic that politicians will not even begin to consider for a moment. There's a good video out there somewhere that does the math and even if they start taxing the rich at 100%, literally take ALL of their income, it won't even pay for recent new programs, much less fund the entire government at the size it's at, MUCH LESS pay off the debt.

They can twiddle numbers around all they want and keeping taxing to pay the interest (that's all income tax currently pays, btw--interest on the debt, and it won't even be able to keep up with that indefinitely for the obvious reasons above) but American Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are rapidly becoming a joke. It starts with massive inflation, the hidden tax that affects the poor and middle class first and foremost, and then something pops big time and our lifestyles suddenly take a dive when no one will lend the U.S. money anymore because they know it will be paid back with monopoly money.

I think the common fallacy with economics is to obsess over numbers and paper. You have to think of money as just something that facilitates the trade of actual goods and services. The paper and numbers have no meaning or power beyond our own trust in it. Numbers and paper aren't actual wealth. Wealth is when goods and services are abundant. You can't transform a pile of paper into food and clothing. You can't take computers and shift some electrons around to move numbers from one person's account to another and expect resources to appear out of thin air. Money is a contract, a promise that if you do something for me now, you will get some service or goods later, but a contract is only valuable to the extent that it is honored consistently. That trust is fizzling away in so many ways--inflation/devaluation of the currency, borrowing money that you know can't be repaid, exorbitant taxation...

Something has to give. I don't know what exactly it's going to be, but the economy is definitely running on a shell game right now and we're in for a rude awakening when the reality of it all hits us. I'm starting to reconsider whether I should start hoarding food!

Honestly, conservatives are stupid, liberals are stupid, and anyone who thinks that he/she fits perfectly in one of those categories is mentally deranged. The system can't work one way or the other; there has to be something in the middle.

I for one have things about myself, political or otherwise, that would be considered liberal and others that would be labeled conservative. I favor the death penalty for any prisoner who receives a sentence of life in prison (save some money while we're at it); I favor raising the taxes of the wealthy; I favor a woman's right to choose to have an abortion; I favor pulling the troops out of the petty wars the US are in right now; I favor cracking down on crime; I favor marijuana legalization (that's a good financial move since it would then be taxable and the ADA won't be hunting down potheads anymore); I think that a lady shouldn't wear shorts that might as well be underwear (Not political, I know); I think that gay people should be allowed to marry (Extra weddings are good for small businesses.)

I just came up with a few ways to save the US a ton of money without any detriments, yet none of these changes are coming. My point is that petty politics and the American inability to compromise and give up some luxuries are the real problems. Hmph.