Top Republican: Cut taxes by 10% … for the rich

Simple...

Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be the property of others.

I should not be required to work for another man who doesn't.

Although on the surface it would seem that taxing one group of people more than another is somewhat unfair, that is until you dig in and find out how most of those "wealthy" people came by their wealth, by cheating,scamming and manipulating other people.

This country is not run by Republicans or Democrats. It is run by the people behind the scenes, the big banks.

One talking point or excuse that the right always uses for lowering taxes on the wealthy is that they are the ones who start business's and create jobs. Implying that any taxes saved will be further invested in or starting a new business. This is a big joke. The only thing the majority of these "entrepreneur's" is going to start is another bank account to keep this xtra money.

Hey, it's all about the BUDGET DEFICIT AND DEBT!

Which, if true, means that TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH are the LAST thing they should be doing!

But you know that instead it's going to be TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, PAY AND PROGRAM CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR.

The plan as I understood it is to reform the tax code and do away with many of the deductions. So rates go down across the board and the deduction of mortgage interest and other distortions go away. Broaden the tax base, lower the rates, and let the tax attorneys and CPAs engage in more productive behavior.

I'd love a simple one page tax form, even if it meant less business. Our tax code is way too complex.

Broaden WHAT tax base?

Manufacturing has left the USA for good. So that's a pile of well-paying jobs gone along with that tax base.

In 25 yrs or so the jobs will come back. The growing, educated middle class of today's developing nations will not want the 80 cents an hour jobs and companies will be forced to shift manufacturing to nations with populations willing to work for less. We'll be the ones begging for those jobs. That's our future. No unions. Menial factory work, no health care or retirement benefits, probably in ugly environmental conditions if the R's have their way on that too. We'll have no secure public infrastructure. Nobody wants to pay any taxes to build it or pay public employees to maintain it. It's over for the US for the forseeable future. But hey! Look on the bright side. Wer'e "free" and we can carry a gun anywhere. Probably have to in order to keep our meager posessions safe from those completely disenfranchised from any hope or meaningful opportunity. So, hunker down folks. Subsistence living in the US is close at hand.

"I'd love a simple one page tax form, even if it meant less business. Our tax code is way too complex. ! posted by bam2

Best point in this whole thing. Every person and corporation pay 10%; no deductions allowed. No "earned income credit" for those who have earned no income and no tax shelters for those who can afford them.

It's fair and it fixes the budget.

For once I agree with you dbw8906. Any thoughts as to which special interest group would be the first to begin throwing massive amounts of lobbying dollars at their Senators or Congressman to carve out an exception?

You know, I used to oppose the flat tax concept because it tended to penalize the poor. After all, if you're making $25,000 a year a 10% loss means a lot more to you than if you're making $125,000. These days I'm undecided.

If there were some kind of poverty level that was tax free, I'd go a long way to support this kind of simplified tax. I think it's a good idea for many reasons, but the likelihood of ever seeing such a thing in my lifetime makes the Ohio lottery look like a sure bet.

In fact, I don't think you'd need to tax corporations. On January 1, everyone starts at zero. After that the government gets ten cents out of every dollar that finds its way into your pocket, no matter how temporarily it stays there. Every Friday, you write a check for the previous week.

Holland not all of us are Palin twitter followers or are glue to Glen Beck. I'm for good ideas no matter what side of the isle they come from. I think the Repubs are failing at epic levels, those who where swept into office to lower spending and change the Rino ways of the R party have done little to nothing.

If you want a flat tax, then it's gonna be INCOME tax, all sales taxes become invalid, as a starting point.

Then you start getting into poverty level or a deduction equal to poverty level, dependents, and all sort of other thorny questions including "married" filing status and dependents which is where I'll probably start getting really pissed off on how that's currently all calculated now vs. under a flat income tax.

Then you get into how to define income, because when the CEO of Exxon gets "a compensation package that approached $400 million. His actual pension was $98.4 million. On top of that, he had restricted stock and stock options he’d accumulated over the years worth more than $250 million, as well as other perks like a one-time payment of $1 million for consulting, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes" as a RETIREMENT PACKAGE, it's kinda hard to classify "two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet" with monetary values for "income" -- you can bet that the IRS and the taxpayer are gonna fight it out in court to determine the value of such. And classifying the "income" value of stock options is a real toss-up too. So it basically becomes illegal for a company to provide these benefits (particularly as this is a RETIREMENT package instead of reimbursement of expenses incurred while actually WORKING for the company) as they are a form of income for the recipient (s/he is getting compensated in services, these services have a non-zero value to them as they could PAY for the use of such out of pocket AND the company is paying a non-zero amount to provide such services).

So all hell starts breaking loose already for loopholes and so on.

Then, I predict, under a flat tax, the next step would be to have all the execs relocate to the Caymans or some other tax shelter and renounce their citizenship and buy a foreign citizenship so they don't get taxed as American citizens. They can live in some idealistic tax-free enclave somewhere and telecommute and only show up in the USA on business trips for the required shareholder meeting once a year.

AC your correct there could be no tax shelters and you would have to be taxed on every benefit dollar you have been paid. Tax pension benes on the front end and the taxes come right out of your "paycheck" and there could be NO claims about getting any of it back. No married bonus, no child credit, no house interest, no offshore shelters, nothing.

Tax form is 3 lines...
1. Total income (pension, stock otions, blah, blah)
2. 10% tax on that total income
3. Payment or refund

I would support any talking head who could get that through congress D or R. It's as close to "Fair" you are ever going to get.

DBW - You really want to rack you're brain try to think of a way to eliminate the necessity of filing entirely. Investment dividends are taxed at X at the time of payout, paycheck income is taxed at X each check. It's not that far fetched.

This was an interesting article:

http://gawker.com/#!5784435/americans-selfish-hypocrites

"A recent survey out of Harvard Business School shows that, when asked about their ideals of wealth distribution, Americans say they want to see a far more equitable society than exists. Even Republicans say this! But as you look around, you notice that there does not seem to be a unified group of millions of Americans marching in the streets to demand greater equality of wealth.

Why? The survey's authors politely observe that "Americans exhibit a general disconnect between their attitudes toward economic equality and their self-interest and public policy preferences."

More like the majority of Americans don't realize exactly how bad the problem is - they believe Faux News and the talking points that "$250k/yr isn't rich" etc.

SOOOO ABOUT THAT FLAT TAX IDEA

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/25/business-az-xgr-flat-tax_8374937.html

IT'S A TAX CUT FOR THE RICH. FUCK THAT NOISE.

AC you make no points what so ever, you have picked up the troll mantle from DHR. Well played.

I made a perfect point. Arizona (Republican Nirvana) decides to enact your dream flat tax. Guess who benefits from it? The rich. Guess who gets fucked in the ass? The poor. Shut up and go back to jerking off to Fox News Channel.

Then it's time to quit being poor

Yeah, and which rich American corporation is hiring? Which corporation isn't got a lawmaker in its pocket making it impossible to bootstrap?

Can't even be a farmer these days, because even if you take care to plant generic seeds, you'll be prosecuted for intellectual property theft when the Roundup Ready™©(R) DNA-containing pollen from the PATENTED GENETICALLY MODIFIED crop nearby blows onto your field causing your plants to produce ROUNDUP-READY™©(R) seeds.

I won't go on a three page rant about how rich corporations are not responsible to "give" me a job because I "need" one. I'll just say I am responsible for me. I also know you're well versed enough to know about GE not paying taxes but also cozy with the Obama administration - so rich corporate America does not necessarily equate to one party or the other.

Toledo's economy is poor, similar to other old labor manufacturing towns. One thing that impresses me and draws my absolute respect is when I see someone who has started a small little business of their own and I have been seeing more and more recently. For some it's cleaning houses, others - painting or generic home repair... I'm not saying that's going to draw young college graduates to a town to work and invest, I'm not saying that is going to turn an economy around - I'm just saying that when I see people gravitate to honest labor and most importantly use that inertia and act to sustain their needs it is refreshing. - Good economy or not.

AC why don't you take a look at Utah (you know the fastest growing econ in the Us) and tell me low taxes and a govt that does step all over business doesn't work.

Silly little thing like facts must be hard for you.

You watch, in 5-10 years or less Utah will be in mucho debt as they keep sucking that Koch.

Oh and as for a government that doesn't step all over business, how about them liquor laws out there, eh? Yeah, Utah sure is a Teapublican paradise.

You watch, in 5-10 years or less Utah will be in mucho debt as they keep sucking that Koch.

Oh and as for a government that doesn't step all over business, how about them liquor laws out there, eh? Yeah, Utah sure is a Teapublican paradise.

As opposed to you sucking Obama's Koch. When are you gonna start a business and employ your fellow sucking off the teet of the government folks?

Oh if by Teapublican paradise you mean a State in the lower 3rd of unemployment, welfare recipients, and crime (41st in violent crime, Ohio 31st) and 1st in quality of life (Ohio 47th). Yeah most people would take that, but I guess you would rather live in a Liberal bastion like California, New York, and Michigan cause they "stick it to the man" right. Why don't you move to Detroit if those policies work so well? They have been sticking it to the man for 40 years and they seem to being doing so well.

Oh btw the liquor laws are that way because the People (you know "We the People") voted them that way, it's called Self Rule and State Sovereignty, which I sure are foreign concepts to you. If you don't like the way Utah runs things than don't live there, stay in Demo Paradise and wallow in debt but keep those Unions strong.

You don't need booze anyway cause I'm sure you full of Obama-Aid.

Funny how conservatives don’t point out Mississippi or Kentucky for conservative states at their best.

Also states like CA, NJ and NY would be in much better shape of they weren't supporting most of the red states.

Most (not all) of the southern states and Alaska are nothing more than welfare states sucking at the teat of the north.

Yeah Kentucky for where the religious theme park is getting tax subsidies!

If there were a flat tax (a fixed percentage of all gross revenues), those subsidies/credits/loopholes would most likely be eliminated. No more exemptions for anybody for anything. You know, like all those subsidies/credits/loopholes that allowed a $14 billion company (General Electric) to pay ZERO taxes last year? Gone. More tax revenue for your pet projects through government funding, since there's no more deductions/credits/subsidies/loopholes.

But since a flat tax only favors "the rich" in your world, you probably wouldn't be interested...

I don't think that anyone is arguing that we should be taxing “gross revenues”, that’s just crazy. If anything we should be taxing net profit. That said a flat tax is pretty regressive. A person making $25K with a child would find themselves paying $5000 in taxes at a 20% flat tax. That’s pretty harsh.

Also, 2/3 of corporations in America don’t pay any Federal taxes. They aren’t going to take kindly to having to pay taxes. All we hear about is that we have some of the highest taxes in the world and we need to lower taxes so companies will hire again. Again – most companies PAY NO TAXES. Big banks? NO TAXES. Big business? NO TAXES. Big oil? NO TAXES. Every time again and again that congress has an opportunity to close a corporate loop hole, the Republicans rise up and stop it. Trust me; the Republicans aren’t going to suddenly tell corporations that they will be paying a 20% tax on profits when the bulk pay nothing now. Never going to happen.

To say most companies are paying no taxes is actually pretty misleading. Money going through a corporation that has a net profit is typically taxed in two different ways. The employees/management/directors pay their individual taxes for the work they do and the amount disbursed to the owners/shareholders as a net profit is also taxed. If a corporation is investing in itself at the expense of its shareholders (no dividends) or downsizing, then the corporation will not be paying taxes on the net profits because they are "breaking even" or losing money. This situation can't go on forever though, because the shareholders will pull their money out of the corporation if it is not making them any money. Note this only applies to corporations, LLCs and similar entities are a different story. Regardless of what the headlines say, all of the money that is paid to those employees/managers/directors as salary is taxed.

A gross revenue tax could never work because some types of business operate at narrow margins and just make up for it by doing a lot of it. A gross revenue tax would essentially fix or artificially inflate prices in certain fields.

The progressive taxation model that we use today is the result of decades of compromise and is a centrist doctrine. Yes, read that again and look it up. Moderates are supposed to be fans of progressive taxation.

I, on the other hand, would welcome the progressive taxation system that we used to have where those above a certain income level were taxed at much higher rates than today. And yes, it is the government's business to determine and readjust economic classes as necessary. You can't say it is a flawed model because it guided this country through our best years economically (late 40s to mid 70s). Paying people is part of "commerce among the states" and if the people want our lawmakers to rake in some bucks to invest in infrastructure, subsidize certain industries, or provide benefits for people then they will do so. Unfortunately, the people don't have much of a voice anymore, due to lobbying.

The founders did not want artificial entities (interest groups, corporations, etc) to have a voice in governing. The Constitution only mentions people. Chartered companies (essentially corporations, what they called them then) did exist and were intentionally left out of the Constitution. Unfortunately, those always shouting "Constitution this, Constitution that" fail to see the irony in protecting big business, as the lines have been grayed by those interests in the past 100 years.

Brainswell just a point - many companies don't pay dividends - Apple hasn't paid a dividend in almost 15 years yet it's stock price has gone awesome.

SensorG it's because people believe in the long term growth and safety of their money with Apple.

That's true dbw, I was just making a point against Brain's arguement that if a company didn't pay dividends, people wouldn't invest. Clearly not true.

Good point, SensorG.

That sentence could be corrected to read: "If a corporation is investing in itself at the expense of its shareholders, suffering at the expense of competition, or downsizing, then the corporation will not be paying taxes on the net profits because they are 'breaking even' or losing money."

Look you will never convince me that taxing someone at a higher rate than someone else is "equal justice", it just does not feel right with me. But I would support closing ALL tax shelters and people paying a flat equal amount. 10% from ALL Americans would solve the majority of our problems.

If you are making 30k you are telling me you can't afford 250 dollars to send your child to school (or multiple children), pave roads, and have safety forces on the street? No more house interest deductions, no more children deductions, no more earned income credits for people who don't earn income. How can you go to the "rich man" and ask him for more money when people are getting thousands of dollars in tax returns when they paid little to none through out the year.

If our President keeps calling for ALL Americans to pitch in and share the load, that means ALL Americans, not just the rich ones.

DBW - 10% for $30K is $3000 not $250.

DBW, if a person is making 30k a year, they are lucky if they can afford their rent and utilities. Yes i can justify people who make more money pay higher taxes than poorer people, what would you rather all the poor people live on the street?

And don't give me that crap that they can make more by going to college and getting educated and all that nonsense because it doesn't always matter. I make under 40k and i have a Bachelors of Science, yea $4,000 a year in taxes would mean i couldn't pay my rent, car, gas, electric, etc. But then again i could always use the food budget to pay those taxes right, who needs to eat? Oh yea, the rich people, they won't be the one's that it will hurt.

Sorry I should have clarified 250 dollars a month, which I'm going to bet is lower than what you pay now if you stop and add it all up.

"And don't give me that crap that they can make more by going to college and getting educated and all that nonsense because it doesn't always matter." tm2 show me in any legal paper where you are guaranteed a 6 bedroom house, a jet ski, or to eat out ever night of the week just for being American? What will is their to achive if you want better things. I don't have any of those things I listed but I also don't want to go put in the work to go get my Masters or want to put in the hours to get those things, so I don't bitch.

So tm2 you believe you should exists for free? The problem with you argument is the person who makes 40k and can't afford it, well then the person who makes 50k says the same thing, and up and up the chain. It's just as bad is the "rich man" and there tax shelters and lawyers, who is going to pay for the teachers we love so much? Public education isn't free, neither are pot hole repairs, or killing poor people in Libya. NOBODY wants to pay more taxes, I understand your plight. When welfare recipents get 2,500 - 3,000 back as a "tax return" when they have paid nothing in, how is that any worse than the "rich man" paying nothing? Still less money for schools, police, rally by the river.

What you are saying is "all the services I use should be paid for by someone else". So how many Americans should pay NOTHING?

I didn't say i should pay nothing, but it just simply wont work making everyone pay the same amount. That would simply mean MORE people on welfare. Sorry, but I believe the more you make, the more you should pay.

When welfare recipients get 2,500 - 3,000 back as a "tax return" when they have paid nothing in, how is that any worse than the "rich man" paying nothing?

I agree with you here, people shouldn't get a tax refund on money they haven't earned.

Hi, I'm dbw and I've been brainwashed by Fox News and right-wing talk radio to believe that anyone making less than a million dollars a year is not rich and to believe that all tax money goes to welfare.

tm2 do you pay more than 250 dollars a month in federal taxes now?

Man has to be accountable for his own decisions, especially those that drive him into poverty. We can't keep putting the chains on the "earners" and telling them to be "their brothers keepers."

I have no interest in regulating the behavior society but you can't keep subsidizing poor choices by asking for "a little more" from those who are "blessed."

Good Lord, Dannes, as someone who is retired (and I'm presuming, a bit closer to end-of-life than others of us here), you can write that with a clear conscience?

I wouldn't want to be meeting my Maker with that attitude.

dbw, no i don't, but i don't get a refund either. I have it balanced so that they take out what is required and no more.

tm2 I must need more deductions because I make about the same money as you do but I sure do pay more than 250 a month and don't get a return either.

So now we have 2 taxpayers making the same level of income and one pays more than the other because of "life situations" and the deductions that they allow. Is this not the same arguement same sex couples make, yet we don't call them Teabaggers? Do you not see the inequality in the tax code? You and I both drive on the same roads, call the same 911, and send our tax checks to the same place.

A flat tax puts everyone on equal footing. I'm sorry but if you make 30k a year and can't afford to chip in 250 bucks a month for all the services we are provided, you should be angry that our spending levels as a nation make your bill so high. What should the 30k person pay? Should we switch to a pay per use? Maybe a gas tax per mile driven? I'm gonna bet "the rich man" uses less public service and takes less from the system than the poor man. I'm for holding the "rich man" accountable (as I said many times) by closing tax loopholes but why do you let govt off the hook? The answer to spending 600 million on Cruise missles to blow up people a world away is "GET THAT EVIL RICH MAN".

I'm NOT RICH, I just find it morally ambiguous to hold a certain sector of our society on the hook to pay the tab.

you should be angry that our spending levels as a nation make your bill so high.

I am angry. Like this dipshit Governor who wants to lower wages for public workers, you know the one's who actually DO the work, while giving his "staff" raises. Same thing with Bell, he's all for SB5, so he can screw the unions, but yet he gives raises to his staff because they were doing the work of more than one person and deserved it, total fuc*ing hypocrite! I am so fu*king sick of people blaming the unions and the working man because stupid politicians won't make cuts in their own administration.

Take city council, they shouldn't be paid a salary in the first place. Give them a per diem, do we really need to pay for auto expenses? Same with the mayor. I have to drive MY own personal car to get to work every day, as well as the regular workers, why the hell cant Bell?

How about these house and senate members, you want to make a cut START THERE.

Anniecski,

I think both of us are compassionate people that do not like to see suffering. It is my belief that God created a perfect World with acute balance. Suffering "often" occurs when that balance is breached and we need to realign ourselves with God and His will. This can refer to sloth, over eating, over spending, addictions...(many things) I also believe that God intends man to labor. God provided the fertile land but we must do the work. I do not think God would see fit that one man toils while others squander their time and God given abilities. That holds just as true for the person who is wealthy and living unjustly off the poor as it does the poor who does not place extraneous effort to rely on their self rather then the kindness of others.

I have had opportunities over the years to assist people who have fallen on hard times. These are often my most difficult choices and often require prayer and meditation. I work with younger people and I constantly try to stress the importance of studying and continuing their education and maintaining a budget. They will not be able to afford the same mistakes my generation made in regards to overspending. If they want to succeed they have to make themselves the most valuable candidate. Careers will not be handed to them. Take advantage of opportunity. If you are behind on your bills and there is a shift that is open but you want to watch a football game or whatever - work that shift!

In so many of the decision we make there are consequences - there has to be - I believe God made it that way for a reason - to draw us back to him when we stray. If I intervene too far in another persons suffering I prohibit or extend their misery and God's intent. It hurts to watch others in pain but my experience is that it is more helpful to guide them out of that pain by helping to show them how to paddle on their own, not by taking the paddle in my own hands. This does snot apply in all circumstances - as I said it is often my most difficult choice to choose when to help and how.

Sorry, I can be long winded. I am comfortable and excited when the time comes to meet my maker and I live in good conscience. My responses may often sound terse when they come "off the cuff." I sense you are a good person who wants about the same thing I do. We just have a different approach on what it takes to get there.

The US Census Bureau says, "Between 2008 and 2009, the poverty rate increased for children under the age of 18 from 19.0 percent to 20.7 percent."

One out of five kids in the U.S. is in poverty. So, they probably made some bad decisions that put them there, hm?

Sometimes circumstances happen that are of no control to a person, its not always bad decisions, and sometimes what may seem like a good decision at a time may turn out bad. You cannot simply say that people who are poor did it to themselves and can get out of it themselves. People are NOT perfect.

"The US Census Bureau says, "Between 2008 and 2009, the poverty rate increased for children under the age of 18 from 19.0 percent to 20.7 percent."

"One out of five kids in the U.S. is in poverty. So, they probably made some bad decisions that put them there, hm?"

Their parents made the bad decision of voting for Obama.LOL!How is all that hope and change working out for you?

tm2 I'm angry that our current President tells us he is going to change and make programs to protect American workers but then goes on a world hopping "free trade" tour handing out agreements like candy (the time has passed for those). Then pays Brazil 2 BILLION to drill for oil offshore (even though we can't drill offshore or in the Plains here), and as part of the Copenhagen Conference The White House has offered to pay 10-20 BILLION to China to help them clean up their environmental issues from manufacturing. So we are going to give them 20 billion to improve their manufacturing (creating jobs in China) but then turn around and borrow the money back from them to pay the light bill?

Those both sound like evil greedy capitalist Republican ideas too me. Sounds like ideas that would keep the oil baron happy and rich people who invest in China. Thats just a 22 billion tip of the iceberg on the money we throw away.

If my tax money actually went to effective policies that furthered US peoples and interest it might be a different story, but no you and I need to pay to be Team America World Police and Captain Planet to our economical enemies.

Anniecski,

That is a great illustration. Children will learn habits from their parents. If they are made comfortable in their poor habits they will not unlearn them and like a plant they will grow (I would). As difficult as it is the kindest sacrifice I can think of is to allow suffering to occur to mend the garden for the long term. If you allow comfort for poor choices there is no incentive to change.

In my World when someone says "I gave to the poor today and feel good." My reaction is "How you can you be so cruel and heartless."

Like administering Morphine "giving" is occasionally necessary but is a huge responsibility that requires great caution and most importantly administered in small doses and only temporarily.

Oh yeah and losing 84 BILLION on GM is going to come out of your check too... http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/31/barack-obama-losing-84-billion-big-success/

TM2,

You are correct and that's why I am cautious to note that "occasional help" is necessary but also needs to be administered extremely carefully. I also do not consider poverty a facet of net worth but believe that even if a man has material wealth he can live very much in poverty.

One side note - Sometimes circumstances do occur that are out of our control, an immediate loss of job for example. Saving for unseen eventualities and not digging yourself too far in debt are great ballast to help prepare for hard times. I'm not saying that this is applicable in all the circumstances but it is an ancient practice that is almost frowned upon in today's society.

1.) Something from today's news to send dbw's blood pressure through the roof: Foreign Banks Tapped Fed's Lifeline Most as Bernanke Kept Borrowers Secret

April Fool, suckers! But hey, that Ron Paul guy was "C-R-A-Z-Y" when he brought these things up in the last 5 years...

2.) Many people may need help at sometime due to emergency or job loss or other calamity, but as Danneskjold points out, poor life choices by someone does not give the right to a lifetime supply of welfare, food stamps, medicaid, etc. on the government's part. It discourages actually working. I'm a fan of a social safety net--I have drawn unemployment in my lifetime and it was a great help. Because I didn't have debt (except mortgage), it kept the bills paid and food available as I looked for and found another job.

As a compasionate society, we need a net. But not a "hammock" where people wallow because the check (or "refill" on the card) always comes in. And that "hammock" encourages further poor life choices; the most obvious example being the often-derided have-another-baby-get-more-money ploys. Can't wait to see what happens when the local casino opens up.

Annie, of course the children are not at fault for their poverty status. You know that--the adults control the situation the child is in. If the adult chooses to improve his/her/their life, the child will benefit. If not, the child will continue to suffer in poverty.

But the adult has to make that active choice. It will not be handed to them, nor is it as easy as a check or debit card. And sadly, once in the grip of a poverty or "welfare" mentality, many adults in this community and around the nation are not willing to take the difficult road to pull themselves out. The adults who do extricate themselves and pull their independent lives back together are admirable because they have taken the risk of wanting something better, rather than staying in the grip of any sort of government-subsidized poverty-level living.

If my tax money actually went to effective policies that furthered US peoples and interest it might be a different story, but no you and I need to pay to be Team America World Police and Captain Planet to our economical enemies.

I can agree with you there too.

So who is stopping us from drilling in this country? the EPA, give me a politician that has that balls to get this done. They won't because they will lose votes next time around.

Why the hell doesn't someone sponsor a bill to do away with the free trade agreements? Well because then they will not get re-elected. Lifetime congress/senate whomever, they don't care about people all they care about is votes.

How about giving Congress term limits? That might give someone balls enough to actually do some freaking good, but as it stands now they don't want to piss off their top contributors, so jack shit gets done to help the people of this country.

The president has term limits, personally every freaking political office should have term limits.

"How about giving Congress term limits? That might give someone balls enough to actually do some freaking good, but as it stands now they don't want to piss off their top contributors, so jack shit gets done to help the people of this country."

Well said and agreed.

I might be turning the corner on Obama-care, but only if we could stop policing the world and giving away the farm to banks and unions. We don't have money for both. Let me say AGAIN, I'm for (and would pay) for programs that would help Americans and not just the ones lucky enough to be in a special class (the poor, unions, the rich). Because we create programs that help everyone but the middle class, we just get sent the bill. Please don't tell me unions are "the middle class" when you are 15% of the population and get perks the other 85% doesn't get. I will not pay for someone to be the "place holder" for "rights" I don't have.

tm2 thank you for holding a meaningful debate and for not telling me to "f off". When people have the opportunity to debate things even staunchy bastards like me can learn something.

Oh hey dbw how about giving away the farm to farms? How much is ADM etc. getting in corporate welfare? How about no more corporate subsidies?

But wouldn't the Democrats raise the "attack on the middle class" banner in hopes to regain the Carter Southern Democrat? They where the ones to champion the farm subsidies to begin with.

personally i really dont understand the whole obama care deal with a few exceptions. Like the lifetime limits that obamacare did away with. I know a young boy who has a disease that it not curable but can be controlled for about 10 grand a month his lifetime limit will be reached before he turns 18. Other than that i think they should reform not inurance but actual health care. Sense when did health care and insurance companies start being for profit?

Not sure when health care and insurance companies started being for profit but I have no objection to it. Surely man absolutely requires food and water just to sustain life and there is no qualms about the necessity for all of the industries centered around food production and distribution being profitable. Agriculture, transportation, stores, even manufactures like Nestles, Kraft, P & G, Walmart (the list could go on..)

I've never understood why the health care industry and insurance companies making a profit raises objections when private industry is concerned with fulfilling all of man's basic and required needs. Broaden that comment even further when you discuss man's absolute necessity for shelter (construction) etc...

In this sense I think it is reasonable that health insurance and health care are profitable.

Danneskjold, many object to health care being for profit because they want to live in a world where people come before money. They want to know that if they weren't around someone else would care for their loved ones out of sheer compassion. If you have ever volunteered or donated to charity, that is the aspirational goal you are reaching for by turning your time and money over.

This is why a lot of hospitals are affiliated with religious groups and are non-profit entities. Some people still care about reducing suffering in the world and recognize we are all cut from the same human cloth. There is a constant tension between profit and non-profit groups in the same areas, mostly because the latter tends to deprive the former of some business. But imagine a world where either did not exist; one results in a lack of competition and choice and the other results in an unchecked market where that compassion never gets a chance.

I know it might be hard for you to believe, but some people actually want to help create a world they want to live in. Annie's right, maybe you should put Atlas Shrugged down for a night and pick up a religious text of your choice.

So Brainswell... simple question.... Do you object to food production and the distribution of food being a "for profit" business? Food being a basic necessity of life for every human being.

Food production is a bit different, in my opinion. A can of soup isn't a necessity, a box of donuts is not a necessity. Food can be grown, or raised etc. by individuals, it doesn't have to be bought. Take Steven Steel for example.

Once again Danneskjold, food production and distribution includes both profit and non-profit groups. I have noticed many groups around town operating gardens to supplement their needs and I just read an article about a group that collects blemished produce left behind in the fields by farmers. Churches have food drives for others and give food away to their members in need, soup kitchens give out plenty of free meals, and groups like the VoA also give away food to those they deem acceptable.

With respect to food, the dual system is working just fine to meet the needs of most people. The people who are fortunate enough to have the resources have so many options with respect to food it is ridiculous. While I have not confirmed this myself, I don't think many people who live in Ottawa Hills are lining up at the Cherry Street Mission to eat someone else's leftovers.

While it is not so easy to sort out if Joe vagrant needs a sandwich every day, it is easy to tell if he needs an appendectomy or some antibiotics. I think eliminating this check valve of sorts for those truly in need would result in more resorting to crime to fill their needs and the further breakdown of values society needs.

DB says I will not pay for someone to be the "place holder" for "rights" I don't have.

Instead of bitching about what other people get, why not organize your workplace so that you have the same rights, benefits and protections?

Oh, that's right. Because it's always easier to complain and point fingers than it is to actually, you know, DO SOMETHING.

Oldhome town says Annie, of course the children are not at fault for their poverty status.

But it's perfectly ok for poor children to suffer for the faults of their parents, while the rest of us stand idly by?

Really? You can live with that? How pathetic.

Dannes says I've never understood why the health care industry and insurance companies making a profit raises objections when private industry is concerned with fulfilling all of man's basic and required needs.

It raises objections for a very simple reason:

If someone can make more of a profit by providing you less health care, they will.

It has been documented time and again that the "insured" must jump through a million hoops to get for-profit insurance companies to live up to their promises.

Finally, when all of us pool our resources -- say, through a public plan -- we can lower administrative costs and offer more benefits to more people.

I know the idea of people working together for a common goal is just SO WRONG for so many here. But consider this: it is the basis for all civilization.

Yep, that's right. Civilized people work together.

What a concept.

Doesn't the blood that flows through the non profits vein come from Government stimulus and charitable contributions that are derived from.... money... made through free enterprise and capitalism?

Annie and Brainswell you may think me uncaring but it's quite the reverse. I do not see money nor profit as evil. If one comes by his money through good values such as honesty, integrity and discipline then it is those values that his money represents. When working with people who have come by hard times I prefer to teach them the values rather then give them an unearned reward.

I think one of the worst atrocities we can do is to place the poor in a basket and pamper them to give us a feeling of self worth (I wish I could underline that last sentence). I prefer aiding the poor by teaching them values that will allow them to stand on their own two feet. I come across this knowledge having had intimate associations at the Cherry Street mission, having been around the half way houses in Toledo, and still involved in working with people who are looking for a better life.

If one comes by his money through good values such as honesty, integrity and discipline then it is those values that his money represents.

Like those paragons of virtue, Halliburton and Enron?

Annie it's good to see you back to hate and name calling, well played. Thought you might be slipping there.

How about I shouldn't be forced to hitch my wagon to someone if I do not wish to. I know INDIVIDUAL liberty might be a hard things for some people to understand. I would rather rise and fall on my own merits than be forced to make career/political choices because the shop leader says so. Unionism in America was a house of cards to begin with that took about 60 years to fall over. Of course we could charge the rest of the world whatever we wanted for a product after WW2 because the "civilized world" had been bombed to shit after 2 consecutive wars and China/Thailand's man export was still rice. There was little any manufacturing going on in the world and as the sole source supplier we could charge (and pay our workers) a kings ransom. Please show me in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers where all Americans are entitled to a lake house, 3rd car, or 8 weeks of vacation. I'm not as strong of a capitalist supporter as I used to be but I find it morally ambiguous to take from other to fund programs that are ineffective in helping this country move forward.

"Yep, that's right. Civilized people work together." Your correct, the part most people gloss over is the WORK part. How in your mind can you justify taxing the rich (which now is anyone not in a union) to subsidize social programs that don't work. Yeah lets raise taxes so we can keep funding welfare programs that turn our cities in to war zones, keep schools running that are failing our children, and give more money to the Fed so they can drop more bombs on people around the world and pay to be Team America World Police and Captain Planet all at the same time.

But it's perfectly ok for poor children to suffer for the faults of their parents, while the rest of us stand idly by? - But it's perfectly ok to continue to pay and give raises to these people who willfully do not wish to contribute to civilization but having children they do not wish to care for and ruin their lives from birth? "Yep, that's right. Civilized people WORK together."

"It has been documented time and again that the "insured" must jump through a million hoops to get for-profit insurance companies to live up to their promises." - You ever had to fight city hall? You act like anything through our wonderful bureaucratic system can ever be handled with ease. You pretend that you are just going to walk into the county office where there are surgeon and pharmacist waiting to fill your every need. Can you tell me why is England/France's govt. run healthcare is in the toilet and they are slashing benes like there is no tomorrow? Because cause things cost MONEY! You want higher pay for people than that means higher cost in a time when people are making less money.

The reason we need to cut taxes it to take the funding way from DC. Our government hands out "free" trade agreements, billions of dollars in handouts to other countries, and still pretends to be come sort of world protector with bases all over the globe.

There are good parts to Barry-Care but some of it is just a clear power grab. Don't try to sell me on the charity or goodwill to your fellow man line, because neither of those originate from the end of a gun barrel. Both come from your heart and your free will, not armed IRS agents who show up at your house when you deiced you do not want to fund the bombing of Libya, broken social programs, or a wildly cost heavy medical program (just ask the CBO). The point in lowering taxes is to take away our government's ability to spread our money around the world without our consent. You know when we hand billions out to foreign banks from TARP money meant to help the struggling AMERICAN homeowner. And no I didn't support the bank bailout.

Lots of people would support more domestic spending if we didn't by GE ranges for Kenya at the tune of 22 million. Oh by the way GE paid zero corporate income tax last year and their CEO golfs with Mr. President, cause you know he is going after those evil rich men. He goes after them for sure, he hits the ball right after the lobbyist and CEO.

Liberal sausage making, please you don't want to know how its done.

Billions of dollars worth of taxpayer subsidies to big oil, companies that are making record profits, were passed unamimously by the GOP in March.

At the same time the GOP proposes billions in cuts to Medicade, which of course provides basic health care to impoverished children and others who fall below the poverty line. How they live with themselves I will never understand.

That line of crap about "pamper the poor" makes me nauseous. It seems to be based on the false premise that every single poor individual is nothing more than a lazy scammer. I'd rather have my life judged as being too kind and maybe helping someone who might not deserve it than miss someone who truly did. Its better in my book to be rememberd as being too kind rather than a selfish bastard masquarading as someone helping the poor find values.

How about the 500 billion in cuts to Medicare in Obamacare?

Holland,

I respect that, in fact, I've had similar thoughts throughout my life. I've volunteered and I've given freely. My belief is that this creates terrible dependence.... "Think Detroit..."

Tomorrow is April 11th. Instead of worrying about the plow that Big Oil should be pulling or the GOP or the wealthy I suggest you concern yourself only with what you can do tomorrow to assist the poor and since "values" are not part of the equation I suggest you put your hard earned money to work helping others with little regard for your own rewards.

I'm curious why the church's in this area are not sending groups of people to talk to the "work for food panhandlers" and get to know them intimately and see how they can help these unfortunates who've fallen on hard times? With all the church's in this area I've never seen one group talking to these panhandlers. What an opportunity to feel good! If your not involved in a church I suggest you give without counting the cost. $1, $5 doesn't buy much these days. I say start dropping $50's and $100's on them. BUT don't stop this week. Every week! Keep giving with every paycheck. Work overtime if necessary. Give until it hurts.

Please report back if you follow through. Call it a challenge. For my part I'll keep preaching self reliance.

I'm already engaged in volunteer work which assists the disadvantaged, so you'll just have to take my word for it....or not.
It's not you I have to answer to.

Self reliance. Cute. That's how you clear your conscience?
Does it fix a kid's cleft pallet for a family who has no medical insurance? Does it put a developmentally disabled young adult into a paying job with the benefit of self esteem and productivity? Does it feed a kid breakfast when there's no food in the house at home, like the USDA School Breakfast Program does?

So... you are not interested in working extra hours per week at a demanding job to earn extra cash to hand each week to the those less fortunate?

Come on... that was the challenge. $50 to $100 per week... every week. I've done volunteer work too, more then most - that's not cash out of pocket - BIG difference trust me. It was through this work that I saw more and more people taking advantage of the system. It sickened me, especially knowing my earnings were paying for them and their children whom these parents had little true interest in.

Come on now... You're not a selfish bastard are you? Take me up on the challenge. We're not talking BP or that dreaded GOP... I'm asking Holland to earn more money and give more cash ($50 to $100 per week for a year or more) out of his earnings to the vagrants on the corner and I'm asking any church people out there to gather some volunteers from their congregation to help these poor souls too. Poor souls who are within walking distance of so many churches in this area.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about! $50 to $100 per week? An extra job? You're nuts if you think that's the criteria for volunteer work. Your post makes no sense. Your inability to answer my questions directly does make sense.

Simple, real simple Holland. You call people selfish who do not wish to give their hard earned money to the poor. You call people selfish who do not wish to work extra hours or add more years in their career aiding the so called "underprivileged." You blame everything on the GOP and big business like GE and Enron who do not pay taxes. BUT... when YOU are challenged to labor harder at [work] real hard work which is not easy and then put that hard earned money EVERY week into the hand of a panhandler or poor person... you do not wish to do so. You pass and say that you do volunteer work...

You can call me selfish because I say that giving to the poor is one of the most heartless things you could do for them (and no... I'm not talking about kids with cleft pallets...) I'm talking about the chronic poor that keep having children out of wedlock and are creating a society of poverty and ignorance with no desire to learn or succeed. The chronic poor who depend on me... and other hard workers paying for their food and children. This is reverse slavery.

We're a lot a like Holland. Neither of us wishes to work harder at demanding jobs and put that hard earned cash in the hand of the poor who "need" it. When you take me up on the challenge and start putting $100 per week cash that you have earned at your job directly into the hands of the poor for a year or more.... when you've done... that come back and preach at me. Until then... I suspect you'll just keep blaming the rich and asking THEM to do more.

One thing we are definitely NOT is anything alike. You have no idea what I contribute in monetary terms or number of hours. You have no idea of how hard I may have worked the last 40 years to allow me to contribute. Yet you trump up some arbitrary criteria and based on that make a judgement call. It doesn't get much dumber (or desperate) than that.

Just keep on thinking all poor and disadvatnaged people are undeserving lazy scammers. Whatever gets you through the night. Take some comfort in the fact that should you wind up needing help, whether through bad luck ( serious illness, lengthy job loss or other mishap), or just your own stupidity, I'd still offer to help you. Thankfully, there are a lot of folks like me. I'm no exception.

Holland, good volley today.

I know you are very well intentioned and I do appreciate that you would help, seriously. But please, please... do not "give" me anything. I'll clean your gutters, wash your walls, mow your lawn but seriously do not give me anything. That thought alone scare me (and I am absolutely serious). I mentioned on another post about "taking" without the mutual act of exchange is like "Morpheine."

I do not ever want someone to give me anything, that scares me more then heroin or any addictive drug. Please make me earn it.

Don't assume you'll always be physically able to clean those gutters.

It not the job its the willingness to earn the money.

Its believing the doctrine of individual liberty and responsibility somehow makes you immune to life's knocks. It doesn't.

Its believing the doctrine of individual liberty and responsibility somehow makes you immune to life's knocks. It doesn't. - You are 100% correct, that is why you save the money you can and build yourself some sort of fiscal safety net. I know people who go on cruises, have 50 some inch TV's but have to put car repair bills on a credit card because they are "broke" and blame the "rich man" and his evil credit card polices. I'm sure those "rich men" forced them to never save a dime of the over 100k combined income they have and shoved them on that cruise ship and crammed that 50 something inch TV into their Best Buy cart. I'm sick of spoiled yuppies who got rich quick in the tech boom and are now throwing their hands up in the air and blaming King George for all their problems. I'm learning to have compassion for the true "poor", not the ones who fill their lives with their own stupid mistakes (no savings, no condoms). No child should be without proper medical coverage, but that doesn't mean I've got to buy their parents a cell phone and 18 years worth of vacation pay.

Savings account and safety nets do sometimes fail and I support programs like unemployment and would support MORE infrastructure spending and social spending if we were not shitting money away here and around the globe. It's going to be a billion we spend in Libya, how many sewer lines could we repair in Toledo with that money? How many homes could we save from foreclosure? Get a social system that helps people do more than "get theirs" and you would have a lot of us "evil conservatives" on board.