New Pornstar Galleries -
All smartbuydisc.rus > World News Nonsense > Budget Battles: Tax Spending Myths Realities > Budget Battles: Tax & Spending Myths & Realities (page 16)
Page 16 of 22 First < 4 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > Last
AuthorPost

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Oct 16 2013 : 4:26PM
So I was wrong about the shutdown, but then again, time just expired.
But it sure looks like, once again, all the posturing and the maneuvering up to the last minute was just for show and the governing will inevitably take place, debt limit raised, sequester still in place, and pretty much nothing else.
Jon Stewart seemed to get the biggest laughs playing in an almost smug assurance that because Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election, the Republicans should get absolutely no concessions on the Affordable Care Act (they've gotten seven, and ten more imposed by executive fiat, by the way), or, I guess, anything at all.
Except this was never about that election, outcome, or consequences. This is simply the limits of brinksmanship over matters of governing - funding the government and the debt ceiling.
Those consequences are the only ones that bear in this debate. And they did get nothing.
They had to follow a doomed campaign built on false pretenses and an obvious con well past the point of no return.
But, luckily, they knew better than to do it again. They're crazy but they're not that crazy
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew admitted yesterday that spending prioritization beyond a debt limit breach isn't an option, because, obviously, the money is all digital and pre-programmed to be spent ahead of time, so I was plainly wrong to suggest that could ever be an option. Technical default, actual default, whatever, it's not going to happen anyways.
And so, Jon Stewart was right, but not because of the last election but because this leverage has expired.


Senior Member

2709 Posts
6/06
Posted - Oct 16 2013 : 4:38PM
Again.
He didn't admit anything. He stated a fact.
Cody McLarge; Clueless just outside of Sacramento

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Oct 16 2013 : 10:30PM
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 12:17AM

mcconnell-thumb.jpg

to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

12345
12200 Posts
9/02
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 1:31AM
Now if those guys would just personally pick up the tab for the $24 billion that this thing cost the taxpayers.
Some turkey on Lawrence O'Donnell said that Boehner couldn't just inform the Tea Party members that it wouldn't work, he had to let this go forward because they had to experience it in order to learn. How many of them are there? Let's say 48 of them. Is it worth $500 million for EACH of them to learn something they are too dense to otherwise learn? Why are they so dense? Why does it cost us $500,000,000 for each of them to learn something? How much will it cost each of them to learn the next thing? Can't we just do a slide show for them or something, instead?
Cody, since you're wrong so much in the past, does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong now?
Nah.

Senior Member

2709 Posts
6/06
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 2:39AM
^ That was former Republican Rep. Chris Shays. Ezra Klein then asked the simple question as to why we needed to burn $24 billion so that a small group of idiots needed to re-learn the lesson that we all did as toddlers... The Fucking Stove is HOT!!! Don't touch it!

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 3:01AM
$24 billion is a pittance. Fire a few hundred overpaid desk jockeys and recoup the loss.

Lord of Lust

az-mo-day-us
14079 Posts
10/01
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 7:13AM
According to Standard & Poor's, it cost America over $24 billion for the hissy-fit that Ted Cruz threw. Now that he and 17 other Repugs voted to keep the shutdown going, don't you think that $24 billion should come out of their pockets - not to mention Fox News and all the other right-wing cheerleaders for promoting such a useless and failed endeavor?
Edited by - Asmodeus on 10/17/2013 7:42:06 AM
the unknown pervert
Deactivated User

I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch.
17482 Posts
5/06
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 9:35AM
Harry Reid from 2006.
“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.
How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?
They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.Democrats won’t be making arguments to support this legislation, which will weaken our country.”

( I did take the liberty of fixing what appear to be autocorrect typos in the text.)

Senior Member

2709 Posts
6/06
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 10:42AM
^ Harry Reid and the Dems were in the minority in the Senate in 2006. The R's had a 30 seat majority in the House. Their was no chance of the debt ceiling not being raised, unless the Dems filibustered, which they did not, because they too knew that the bill needed to pass. Which it did 52-48.
Other than pointing out Reid engaging in typical political rhetoric, what was your point?

Senior Member

12345
12200 Posts
9/02
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 12:28PM
The point should be that the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy and the Bush wars are the largest drivers of the national debt.
And that the deficit has been reduced by half under Obama.
And that the Repubs are not really fiscal conservatives. It's a platform they'd like to claim, but history shows they expand the debt faster than Dems.
Observe the Cody:
Hundreds of jobs lost (actually, it's estimated that hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost in corporate belt-tightening over the shutdown and debt uncertainty of the past two weeks)...
Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost is no big deal as long as it buys Ted Cruz some tv coverage.
$24 billion is nothing.
Little matter that we got nothing for it.
There are uncounted losses in this. Scientists were unable to get into public buildings to maintain their research. Some long-term research has to be scrapped and started over. We will never know a true count of what has been lost, but as long as we got something (nothing) out of it, it must be worth it.

Senior Member

2709 Posts
6/06
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 12:50PM
Impact Of The Debt Ceiling Debate On The U.S. Economy--Getting Worse By The Day
[link inactive:404 - Page not found]from StandardandPoors.com on Oct. 16, 2013
and

Senior Member

2709 Posts
6/06
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 1:09PM
- video from CNBC

Senior Member

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” - Kierkegaard
7236 Posts
8/09
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 3:41PM
The worst part is the instability and temporary solution that is passed.
Many people or companies that are employees by government, have contracts with government or relay on tourism, etc. etc., will be hesitant on spending a lot on upcoming holiday/seasonal gifts if this is likely to happen again beginning of next year after the temporary funding measure expires.
Now this could affect retail and manufacturers if seasonal spending if lowered due to people saving just because of funding instability.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

12345
12200 Posts
9/02
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 4:57PM
We will never be able to count the costs of the Cruz photo op.
Or, as they say now, the shutdown "was a success," because the Republicans were able to "reestablish their brand," as they "needed to." Next time, they should do that at their own expense.

Senior Member

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” - Kierkegaard
7236 Posts
8/09
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 6:29PM
Not all federal desk jockeys are overpaid and do meaningless work.
I've met lots of FDA regulators and FDA data analysts who screen out lots of bad and unsafe drugs getting into our medical system.
From your statements, sounds like you want to forgo the federal regulatory side, which leads to Chinese like products like lead in toys, toxic compounds in products, nevermind medications where there are no real standards in manufacturing medicine/drugs or auditing clinical trials (precursor to drug approval).
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Oct 17 2013 : 9:31PM
This is, perhaps, the stupidest most callous remark made by Cody "I really don't care that anyone pays less if I'm forced to pay more" McLarge, this year [o\|]

Senior Member

Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic
5797 Posts
8/03
Posted - Oct 18 2013 : 1:46AM
Lindi, have I told you lately that I love you? Well I do! Thank you for being in my world.

Senior Member

12345
12200 Posts
9/02
Posted - Oct 18 2013 : 11:12AM
Awww, thanks.
It looks like there are more like 17 real hardcore dunces in this who needed to learn the lesson, so maybe $1.5 billion for each of them to be taught something. It's just *beyond* remedial.
 
All-Star Member

4629 Posts
8/11
Posted - Oct 18 2013 : 12:05PM
^
Good plan
Now, any idea how to divvy up responsibility for the 415+ billion dollars in interest we payed in fiscal 2013 on outstanding federal debt? To be fair, please include members of the Executive branch as well as Congress.

Senior Member

Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic
5797 Posts
8/03
Posted - Oct 18 2013 : 9:16PM
The problem is that they aren't going to be taught. The ignorant population actually rewards people for this contemptible behaviour.
Not sure if you have been following events in Australia, but our own right-wing corporate boot-licking party has just been elected into government. They spent the last three years doing nothing but sabotage our nation from the opposition benches. They did their best to wreck the economy, wreck our international relations, wreck our environment and wreck our immigration policy, all from dirty politics in the same style as America's teabaggers.
Our people have given them a big bright flashing message: "If you want access to power, all you need to do is become disgusting, contemptible scum, and smash anything decent that is within your reach."
Capitalist greed is doing everything it can think of to tear down western civilization, apparently in the hope of making profit from its rotting corpse. Sadly, as far as I can see, it is going to succeed in its aim.
You personally are an island of sanity in a sea of proud aggressive ignorance. I wish you every success, but I think it may be too late to halt America's slow collapse into feudalism.
The barons and kings who you cast off 200 years ago are coming back to grind Americans' faces into the dirt, only this time you will call them "directors" and "CEOs". You can see from the comments in this thread that Americans will welcome their new slavemasters with sycophantic enthusiasm. The tea party is just their meat-headed cheer squad.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Oct 19 2013 : 1:51AM
^
Interesting. I have to admit I do not know much about Australian politics...but somehow I get the impression that Lord Rupert Murdoch's grubby lil' fingers have something to do with this...

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Oct 19 2013 : 4:42AM
^^That figures. I think Tony Abbot's freakin' awesome.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Oct 28 2013 : 11:31AM

Conference examines impact of Kansas tax changes
By By John Milburn
LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) — Leaders of urban and rural local governments said Thursday that recent changes in the Kansas tax structure have put more pressure on towns and counties to maintain public services with property and sales taxes.
The comments from the Johnson County manager and the Salina city manager were part of a panel at the University of Kansas focused on the impact of changes in the Kansas income tax policy in 2012 and 2013. The changes have resulted in lower rates for most taxpayers, but also fewer dollars available for state government and state aid to local governments.
The event sponsored by the university's Institute for Social and Policy Research drew more than 100 state and local government officials, as well as economists.
Kansas has cut individual income tax rates and eliminated taxes for nearly 200,000 businesses over the past two years. Republican Gov. Sam Brownback pushed for the changes, along with the GOP-controlled Legislature, which has set a goal of eliminating income taxes entirely in the coming years.
Local officials said that they have rung out as much as they can from their governments as the state pushes more responsibility for funding and providing public services on them.

Hannes Zacharias, Johnson County manager, said the state's most populous county is "in a pickle."
"Indeed, we are at the end of the food chain, and we're the ones who have to clean up the mess," Zacharias said.
He said the county has lost state revenue for jobs such as inspecting sewer septic tanks for new residents in rural areas. In addition, furloughs in district court operations caused by limited state funds mean defendants must stay in county jails longer while awaiting trial, a cost picked up by local governments.
Salina City Manager Jason Gage said other factors besides tax rates affect whether new residents or businesses move to an area, including the quality of life, services and a trained workforce.
Gage said low taxes typically result in low-quality services, such as bad roads. Increasing fees for the services is an option, but he said those fees have the same effect as taxes on lower and middle-income residents who have the least ability to pay.

Panelists said higher sales and property taxes could be an option. Some suggested that a 10 percent sales tax might be ideal for Kansas, but the question is how much of that rate would be charged by the state and what level local governments would have left. The Kansas statewide sales tax is 6.15 percent.
Education officials said their options were even more restricted. School districts rely on state aid, approximately $3 billion annually, plus local property taxes to fund schools. Overall state funding has increased in recent years when counting increased contributions to teacher pensions.
Sally Cauble, a State Board of Education member from Dodge City, said while Kansas spends 52 of its overall budget on public schools, the ability to improve student achievement is feeling the pinch of reduced state spending.
"Kansas doesn't have unlimited funds, but funds available to education today will have more of an impact on the state than any other dollars it can spend. That is an investment," Cauble said via video link from Ulysses in southwestern Kansas. "My concern is, 52 percent of what? (There's a) big difference between 52 percent of $100,000 and 52 percent of $1 million."
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Oct 28 2013 : 4:18PM
Accomplishes all the "flat tax" goals of balancing the budget on the backs of those least able to afford it, while allowing the right-wing politicians to brag about cutting their taxes at the same time.
The sad, sad part of it is that many of those getting screwed will buy the "cut my taxes" bullshit -- even though they are being drained of more of their income through "fees" -- and still vote GOP.
The "cut taxes raise fees" approach has the added benefit of rewarding those at the top of the income food-chain with even more money in their pockets.
What's The Matter With Kansas?

Senior Member

2709 Posts
6/06
Posted - Oct 31 2013 : 4:17PM
Check Out Uncle Sam's Record Revenue and Slimmer Deficit
by Matthew Phillips at BusinessWeek.com

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Oct 31 2013 : 6:46PM
That really is due to the sequester. Cutbacks in proposed spending on government programs will slow deficit growth - common sense.

Senior Member

2709 Posts
6/06
Posted - Oct 31 2013 : 7:13PM
^ I guess you didn't read past the first sentence...
Edited by - rlankford on 10/31/2013 7:13:48 PM

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Oct 31 2013 : 7:31PM
I did. The sequester didn't cut spending - it merely amounts to cutbacks in future spending. The deficit has been growing quickly because of perpetual unsustainable increases in spending levels. The sequester scales that back, so the deficit is growing at a slower pace. Or it's from revenue, but it's still squeezing blood out of a turnip.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Dec 20 2013 : 1:13AM
Lucky Ducky Income Distribution.png
Ruben Bolling's
They've been doing "Lucky Ducky" strips long before it was acceptable to talk about income inequality in public. :)
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Dec 20 2013 : 1:24AM

I for one, am SHOCKED.
merica-fyeah-redneck-shotgun.jpg
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Jan 11 2014 : 12:12AM
Business Insider:

Your read it here first: Real wages fell 0.2% in 2012, down from $295.49 (1982-84 dollars) to $294.83 per week, according to the 2013 Economic Report of the President. Thus, a 1.9% increase in nominal wages was more than wiped out by inflation, marking the 40th consecutive year that real wages have remained below their 1972 peak.
Yet no one in the media noticed, or at least none thought it newsworthy. I searched the web and the subscription-only Nexis news database, and there are literally 0 stories on this. So I meant it when I said you read it here first. In fact, there was little press coverage of the report at all, in sharp contrast to last year.

 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Jan 11 2014 : 12:18AM
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Jan 11 2014 : 12:26AM
Candy Crowley Asks Scott Walker Why Anyone Who's Unemployed Should Vote Republican.


fubar

7535 Posts
12/09
Posted - Jan 11 2014 : 2:53AM
Sometimes I forget that is still considered a debateable question. What we call the middle class is not a sustainable lifestyle. It will inevitably end, soon. What we call poverty will cover at least 90% of America, for at least centuries, and possibly the remainder of humanity's time on Earth.

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 11 2014 : 11:10AM
^^^ please read Smiler's article:
Ask yourself, are you planning to be dead before you get old?
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Jan 22 2014 : 1:15AM
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Jan 22 2014 : 1:17AM
Ah, yes, the famed Townshend/Daltrey Retirement Plan....

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 22 2014 : 12:47PM
Well, people live to be old now. If people lose their jobs about every 5 years, you will have to look for a job at age 40, again at 45, again at 50, at which point it starts getting difficult. Again at 55, again at 60. Nobody is hiring you.
There aren't enough Walmart greeter jobs for the entire retired population. A week or two ago I heard it reported that Walmart was opening a new store in one area, looking for 600 workers, and 23,000 people applied.
Around 1980, we lived next to a retired law enforcement officer who was 80 but looked 60. You could see his wife's age, but he looked fabulous and still went up on his roof when it needed fixing. Anyhow, he told us that when he first retired on his pension, he and his wife were going to out dinner every night, living the life yadda yadda (and she still had some very nice clothes and shoes). But some wild inflation hit (our bank cd's were paying 14% or so), and he said he and his wife now looked forward to going to Denny's on Sunday with friends. It was his little warning to us.
A full time minimum wage worker in 1974 at $2 an hour made $4160 per year. People that I knew at college that year drooled over the idea of graduating with a computer degree and maybe getting $1,000 a month. By 1980, the minimum wage was $3.10 (huge inflation) or $6448 a year. People who worked at a semiconductor plant with me at that time thought $20,000 (more than triple their pay) would be incredible. Graduating engineers made $20,000 or $25,000 a year. By 1995, the same engineer would have worked up to around $100,000 a year. I think new graduates get $80,000 to $100,000 now, fresh out of school. Full time minimum wage now at $7.25 pays $15,080 a year. Although, at 30 hours a week, it's only $11,310 a year.
I don't know what percentage of people make that minimum wage, but it used to be mostly teenagers and very young adults just getting started. There is no fucking way for adults to live life and have a family on that, while actually saving for retirement. How much could they possibly set aside at wages of $12,000 a year, at 1% interest on savings accounts, that could set them up for anything but cat food in their golden years?
Walmart and other places paying the minimum wage are having the taxpayers pick up the tab for the food and rent of their employees, but they are also making the taxpayers pick up the tab for the 20 to 40 years of retirement after these people get too old to find work. There is no fucking way for these people to save for it. These are people who take payroll loans to scrape to the next paycheck. They think they can pay the loan back with the tax refund, but the week before the tax refund comes, the transmission on the car goes out. Can't get to work without the car.
We really are headed for a shitstorm. We are doing this all wrong.
Edited by - Pieps on 2/4/2014 11:38:01 AM

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 22 2014 : 12:52PM

Summary: if you give about $6,000 per person per year (just giving it, with no conditions) to poor people, it saves money on later expenses.
The reason people dismiss actual evidence that giving money to the poor stimulates the economy, saves more money than it costs, and makes kids' lives better is:
I'm guessing here, "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps."
Whatever. There is some reason why we are happy to give huge subsides to the rich, but will not tolerate giving it to the poor.

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 22 2014 : 12:53PM
Yeah, I know I ramble.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Jan 22 2014 : 9:10PM
Hey Pieps, I hope you don't think I was making fun of what you said. It was just funny the way you phrased it. I couldn't resist.
Of course, conservatives would just love it if everyone retired at 55 and died at 56 or so.

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 22 2014 : 11:42PM
Heh! No, I didn't think that.
I knew it was absurd phrasing, though wicked honest and blunt.

fubar

7535 Posts
12/09
Posted - Jan 23 2014 : 12:25AM
Someone who absolutely does not give a fuck is absolutely not giving a fuck while writing long rants in every thread about politics, healthcare, or money. That is impressive not giving a fuck stamina.

Senior Member

2709 Posts
6/06
Posted - Feb 4 2014 : 11:30AM
Federal Budget Deficit Drops To Lowest Level Under Obama
by Dylan Scott at Talking Points Memo

Senior Member

2709 Posts
6/06
Posted - Feb 4 2014 : 6:32PM
New Poll Shows Political Futility Of Deficit Reduction
Huffington Post
Ignorance - the greatest threat to our Republic.

Senior Member

2759 Posts
11/09
Posted - Feb 4 2014 : 10:22PM
I have had this discussion with my wing nut college educated summa cum laude mother who has a problem understanding it. Most likely because she does not want to and is a flaming wing nut!

Senior Member

2709 Posts
6/06
Posted - Feb 5 2014 : 12:53AM
Our Hidden Government Benefits
by Suzanne Mettler at the New York Times

Senior Member

2709 Posts
6/06
Posted - Feb 6 2014 : 6:03PM
Next Time Someone Argues For 'Trickle-Down' Economics, Show Them This
by Kathleen Miles at Huffington Post
What was it that happened in 1980-81? I can't remember.
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Mar 7 2014 : 12:48PM

The Opinion Pages
Op-Ed Columnist
by Paul Krugman
MARCH 6, 2014
Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. So when you see something like the current scramble by Republicans to declare their deep concern for America’s poor, it’s a good sign, indicating a positive change in social norms. Goodbye, sneering at the 47 percent; hello, fake compassion.
And the big new poverty report from the House Budget Committee, led by Representative Paul Ryan, offers additional reasons for optimism. Mr. Ryan used to rely on “scholarship” from places like the Heritage Foundation. Remember when Heritage declared that the Ryan budget would reduce unemployment to a ludicrous 2.8 percent, then tried to cover its tracks? This time, however, Mr. Ryan is citing a lot of actual social science research.
Unfortunately, the research he cites doesn’t actually support his assertions. Even more important, his whole premise about why poverty persists is demonstrably wrong.
To understand where the new report is coming from, it helps to recall something Mr. Ryan said two years ago: “We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives.” There are actually two assertions here. First, antipoverty programs breed complacency; that is, they discourage work. Second, complacency — the failure of the poor to work as much as they should — is what perpetuates poverty.
The budget committee report is almost entirely concerned with the first assertion. It notes that there has been a large decline in labor force participation, and it claims that antipoverty programs, which reduce the incentive to work, are a major reason for this decline. Then come 200 pages of text and 683 footnotes, designed to create the impression that the scholarly research literature supports the report’s claims.
But it doesn’t. In some cases, Mr. Ryan and colleagues outright misstate what the research says, from a number of prominent scholars about the misrepresentation of their work. More often, however, the report engages in argument by innuendo. It makes an assertion about the bad effects of a program, then mentions a number of studies of that program, and thereby leaves the impression that those studies support its assertion, even though they don’t.
What does scholarly research on antipoverty programs actually say? We have quite good evidence , which draw most of Mr. Ryan’s ire — and which his budgets propose slashing drastically. Food stamps, it seems, do lead to a reduction in work and working hours, but the effect is modest. Medicaid has little, if any, effect on work effort.
Over all, here’s : “While there are significant behavioral side effects of many programs, their aggregate impact is very small.” In short, Mr. Ryan’s poverty report, like his famous budget plan, is a con job.
Now, you can still argue that making antipoverty programs much more generous would indeed reduce the incentive to work. If you look at cross-county comparisons, you find that low-income households in the United States, which does less to help the poor than any other major advanced nation, work much more than their counterparts abroad. So, yes, incentives do have some effect on work effort.
But why, exactly, should that be such a concern? Mr. Ryan would have us believe that the “hammock” created by the social safety net is the reason so many Americans remain trapped in poverty. But the evidence says nothing of the kind.
After all, if generous aid to the poor perpetuates poverty, the United States — which treats its poor far more harshly than other rich countries, and induces them to work much longer hours — should lead the West in social mobility, in the fraction of those born poor who work their way up the scale. In fact, it’s just the opposite: America has less social mobility than most other advanced countries.
And there’s no puzzle why: it’s hard for young people to get ahead when they suffer from poor nutrition, inadequate medical care, and lack of access to good education.
The antipoverty programs that we have actually do a lot to help people rise. For example, Americans who received early were healthier and more productive in later life than those who didn’t. But we don’t do enough along these lines. The reason so many Americans remain trapped in poverty isn’t that the government helps them too much; it’s that it helps them too little.
Which brings us back to the hypocrisy issue. It is, in a way, nice to see the likes of Mr. Ryan at least talking about the need to help the poor. But somehow their notion of aiding the poor involves slashing benefits while cutting taxes on the rich. Funny how that works.
-------------------------------------------------
Knitwit
the Middle
This will be my last comment for a while. Why? I could only find part-time contract work at close to minimum wage in the past year. Since none of those jobs count as being employed, none of those jobs got me off unemployment eating up my benefits. By accepting a job, any job I lowered my base income so that the unemployment I would have gotten from work I'm trained for would be $400 a week dropped to $110. I went on extended benefits just in time for them to be canceled. In short I have no money, no money at all for two months. I'm flat broke.
Here's the funny part. I look for work out of my very red state that has still to produce even one job in my field when jobs are opening up elsewhere (although I do get lots of offers to work for free as a volunteer). Even competitive faculty positions at universities. Out of ten applications, I am offered 5 interviews--at universities. Thanks to Ryan and company, I don't have the resources to go to them, even reimbursed because I don't have the money to buy the ticket to be reimbursed for.
Structural workforce issues? No! Lulled into satisfaction with a marginal existence? No! Don't work enough? Do they really think my working double shift at minimum wage is a useful allocation of my resources?
Yes, they want that to be yes. Substantive free work, enforced by threat of destitution. That is the Ryan plan, naked for all to see. Hypocrisy? Doesn't even begin to cover it. I prefer words too strong for this venue.
-------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth
Seoul
It is astounding to me how SNAP, WIC, unemployment payments, and other meager safety net programs catapult the poor into luxurious lifestyles, rendering them indolent to the point of inertia, but the millions in farm subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy have exactly the opposite effect on the industrious top one percent, so that it is over their well-being Congress frets so.
Page 16 of 22 First < 4 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > Last



Jump To:

Online porn video at mobile phone