FOX News graphic detailing President Bush's $16,000 tax credit for married folks



  • I just happened to be in my company's break room when FOX news was reporting on the details of President Bush's announced tax cuts and rebates to "boost the economy."  While the reporter being interviewed talked about the tax cuts, a graphic came up with the following:

    INDIVIDUALS: $800

    MARRIED COUPLES: $16,000

    A few seconds later the graphic was explained by the reporter as $800 for individuals and sixteen-hundred for married couples.  Dang, I liked that slide better!  A female coworker in the room  with me said, "Dang, I need to find myself a husband!"

    Anybody happen to see that, or get a still of that video clip?  A quick search on Foxnews.com turned up nothing but surely somebody got a clip of that!  What a great WTF, although I guess really it was just a glorified typo.
     



  • So, wait, isn't it also kind of a WTF that they would separate INDIVIDUALS and MARRIED COUPLES since either way each person gets $800.00?

    Unless of course a "COUPLE" means more or less than the usual two.



  • @Siloria said:

    So, wait, isn't it also kind of a WTF that they would separate INDIVIDUALS and MARRIED COUPLES since either way each person gets $800.00?

    Unless of course a "COUPLE" means more or less than the usual two.

     You're forgetting a zero.  800 * 2 = 16 hundred, not 16 thousand.



  • @Siloria said:

    So, wait, isn't it also kind of a WTF that they would separate INDIVIDUALS and MARRIED COUPLES since either way each person gets $800.00?

    Unless of course a "COUPLE" means more or less than the usual two.

    Married couples file a single tax return, so it may be pertinent to distinguish.  If their definition of "individual" meant "person listed on tax return", it would include children as well.

    I still wish I could include my dog as a dependant.



  • @Siloria said:

    So, wait, isn't it also kind of a WTF that they would separate INDIVIDUALS and MARRIED COUPLES since either way each person gets $800.00?

    Unless of course a "COUPLE" means more or less than the usual two.

    The tax system already puts individuals and married couples into different categories.  If the graph only specified that individuals get 800$ and didn't mention couples at all, it would be incomplete.



  • @Siloria said:

    So, wait, isn't it also kind of a WTF that they would separate INDIVIDUALS and MARRIED COUPLES since either way each person gets $800.00?

    I assume you haven't ever filed a US income tax return? There are four categories that a person can fall into: "Single", "Married filing jointly", "Married filing separately", and "Head of household". If you are filing under "married filing jointly", you and your spouse are filing a single tax return between the two of you, and the form would contain a $1600 credit. For any of the other categories, it's one tax return per person, and each return would contain a $800 credit.



  • @Siloria said:

    So, wait, isn't it also kind of a WTF that they would separate INDIVIDUALS and MARRIED COUPLES since either way each person gets $800.00?

     

    For couples who routinely pool their finances, it's a convenience; saves you the trouble of doing math at the same time you're trying to listen to them discuss other aspects of the issue.

     



  • @bassaf said:

    I just happened to be in my company's break room when FOX news was reporting on the details of President Bush's announced tax cuts and rebates to "boost the economy."  While the reporter being interviewed talked about the tax cuts, a graphic came up with the following:

    INDIVIDUALS: $800

    MARRIED COUPLES: $16,000

    A few seconds later the graphic was explained by the reporter as $800 for individuals and sixteen-hundred for married couples.  Dang, I liked that slide better!  A female coworker in the room  with me said, "Dang, I need to find myself a husband!"

    Anybody happen to see that, or get a still of that video clip?  A quick search on Foxnews.com turned up nothing but surely somebody got a clip of that!  What a great WTF, although I guess really it was just a glorified typo.
     

    I have a better one. A few years ago, when the fashionable subject on cable news was the threat of dirty bombs, MSNBC put up a PowerPointish graphic of bullet points, listing the possible substances that can be used to build a dirty bomb. Among them were:

    • Plutonium
    • Strontium
    • Sezium

    That's right, Sezium. I guess high school educations aren't a requirement over at MSNBC. Nor the ability to look up a word (or periodic table) online, or in any basic reference book.

    Like you, I dearly wish I had a capture of it.



  • As a married lower middleclass software developer, I'm curious as to what the income cap is for these tax cuts, and if we get to apply them to our 2007 tax filing.

     $1600 means I'd about break even instead of having to pay this year.

    EDIT, from some news article:

    Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy
    Priorities, said the administration's plan would bypass or only give
    partial help to more than 40% of tax filers with the most modest
    incomes. Families of four making less than $40,950 would get partial
    help or nothing at all, he wrote.

     Typical Bush policy. Cut taxes to the people who can afford to pay them, and screw the poor folks.

     Good thing I'm the head of a household of 4 people and I make more than 41k.


     


     



  • @bassaf said:

    A female coworker in the room  with me said, "Dang, I need to find myself a husband!"

    TRWTF is you didn't take the hint ;-) 



  • @Jonathan Holland said:

    As a married lower middleclass software developer, I'm curious as to what the income cap is for these tax cuts, and if we get to apply them to our 2007 tax filing.

     $1600 means I'd about break even instead of having to pay this year.

    EDIT, from some news article:

    Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy
    Priorities, said the administration's plan would bypass or only give
    partial help to more than 40% of tax filers with the most modest
    incomes. Families of four making less than $40,950 would get partial
    help or nothing at all, he wrote.

     Typical Bush policy. Cut taxes to the people who can afford to pay them, and screw the poor folks.

     Good thing I'm the head of a household of 4 people and I make more than 41k.

    Quotes like this are somewhat misleading.  The reason poor people might not get the full $800 tax credit is because, get this, they pay less than this in taxes!   An equally valid way to say what this guy said would be to say that the janitor got a 100% income tax credit, but the lawyer only got a 0.05% income tax credit.
     

    The credit isn't meant to be a transfer payment (like, say the Earned Income Tax Credit), but to lower the amount you pay in taxes.  If you were a family of 4 making only $41K, you probably aren't paying income taxes, and may be getting money back already.   The point is to keep more money in the private sector, where hopefully these people will spend their money buying things, helping the economy to grow a bit faster.  In reality, they mostly use it to pay debt (that's what happened last time, at least), so there isn't as much of a stimulus as is commonly thought.  Either way, giving more money to someone who already isn't paying just takes would require the government to tax or borrow it from someone else, thereby not causing any additional stimulus.



  • people paying off debts does help the economy.  It frees up bank capital to invest in businesses and other investments. Other than that, you are right on.   How the fuck would someone that pays $100-$200 in taxes get a $800 tax cut?

    Typical Bush policy?  No, typical moron response. 

     



  • @tster said:

    people paying off debts does help the economy.  It frees up bank capital to invest in businesses and other investments.

    I agree, but it's not the effect that cheerleaders of this sort of stimulus are trying to achieve.  They're hoping for an immediate up tick in consumer spending to spur those investments, which would presumably have a quicker visible impact.



  • @VGR said:

    That's right, Sezium. I guess high school educations aren't a requirement over at MSNBC. Nor the ability to look up a word (or periodic table) online, or in any basic reference book.

    Well, according to Vikipediya, Sezium means something in some other language.  I'm not sure what that says, but the word "element" is there, and some of the text look Arabic to me.  Maybe Sezium is what the terrorists call Cesium, in which case it's probably what they'd use to make a dirty bomb...
     



  • @tster said:

    people paying off debts does help the economy.  It frees up bank capital to invest in businesses and other investments. Other than that, you are right on.   How the fuck would someone that pays $100-$200 in taxes get a $800 tax cut?

    Typical Bush policy?  No, typical moron response. 

     

    They've been paying people with no jobs "earned income credits" for years. 
     



  • @medialint said:

    @bassaf said:

    A female coworker in the room  with me said, "Dang, I need to find myself a husband!"

    TRWTF is you didn't take the hint ;-) 

    I tried that once in college, near graduation....

    Girl 1, 2, and 3 are talking about Girl 4 getting married.

    Guy next to me says "Man, you guys are all talking about marriage and stuff.  I'm still worried about finals."

    Me: "Screw finals.  I'm worried about having a job when I graduate."

    Girl 1: "We don't need jobs, just husbands."

    Me: "Wait, but you guys all have jobs.  But you need husbands.  And I need a job OR a spouse....."

     
    There were no takers.
     



  • @tster said:

    people paying off debts does help the economy.  It frees up bank capital to invest in businesses and other investments. Other than that, you are right on.   How the fuck would someone that pays $100-$200 in taxes get a $800 tax cut?

    Typical Bush policy?  No, typical moron response. 

     

     I made less than 41k last year, and I paid several thousand in taxes. It complete depends on how you file, if you are 1099 etc.

    That said, while I will directly benefit from Bush's tax cut, you have to realize that it is just a bandaid that will stimulate the economy falsely for a short period of time, considering that it will be funded by a 145 Billion BOND.

    The democrats will have to raise taxes to bail out the hole we are in when they take office next year, which will make people hate them, despite the fact that they are just trying to fix the problems of this disastrious presidency. Its a great political move for Bush right now. Makes him look good again, and the democrats look bad.

    Anytime you shuffle debt around to 'fix' the economy, you are just hiding the real problem.


     



  • @Jonathan Holland said:

    @tster said:

    people paying off debts does help the economy.  It frees up bank capital to invest in businesses and other investments. Other than that, you are right on.   How the fuck would someone that pays $100-$200 in taxes get a $800 tax cut?

    Typical Bush policy?  No, typical moron response. 

     I made less than 41k last year, and I paid several thousand in taxes. It complete depends on how you file, if you are 1099 etc.

    That said, while I will directly benefit from Bush's tax cut, you have to realize that it is just a bandaid that will stimulate the economy falsely for a short period of time, considering that it will be funded by a 145 Billion BOND.

    The democrats will have to raise taxes to bail out the hole we are in when they take office next year, which will make people hate them, despite the fact that they are just trying to fix the problems of this disastrious presidency. Its a great political move for Bush right now. Makes him look good again, and the democrats look bad.

    Anytime you shuffle debt around to 'fix' the economy, you are just hiding the real problem.

    You really have no idea how economics work.  Lowering taxes does make the economy stronger.  And it's not a temporary band aid.  If you need evidence look at the economy ever since Reaganomics was instituted.  Another interesting thing about government spending that you probably haven't though about, is that deficit spending is actually a good thing.  Not only has it propelled our economy to what it currently is (and by the way, our economy is currently extremely strong, especially in the long run), but most top economists think that one of Clinton's smartest moves was cutting back the surplus through tax cuts.  After a decade of insane growth in the economy the government had to much money, and Clinton and Greenspan purposefully decreased the surplus. 

    Furthermore, the national debt is actually not at it's highest right now.  (Well, to morons that measure the national debt in $ amount it is.  But people that know what they are talking about and measure it in proportion to the GDP it isn't).   And I hate to tell you this... but this tax cut will only become law if your precious democrats agree to it.


    BTW, I don't know why I said $100-$200, but the point still stands.  If you pay $2000 in taxes/year.  Is it really fair to give you a $800 credit?  Credits like this are notorious good to the poor and lower middle class while making no difference to the upper middle class or the rich.  For intance, for you(from what I gather) this will be about a 10%-20% tax cut (me too!).  But to my boss this will be more like a 2%-2% cut.  Not that he ends up with a huge amount more money than I do at the end of the year.  I made about $50,000 this year including some capital gains, and my total take home from that will be about $40,000 (using very rough numbers here and I live alone and have no Dependants).  But my boss and his wife both work and together make about $200,000/year.  So they end up paying crazy amounts of taxes and their take home will be more like 140,000.   But that's two people, so you can consider it's more like 80,000/person.   So even though they make 4x what I make, they only bring home 2x what I make. 



  • @tster said:

    @Jonathan Holland said:
    @tster said:

    people paying off debts does help the economy.  It frees up bank capital to invest in businesses and other investments. Other than that, you are right on.   How the fuck would someone that pays $100-$200 in taxes get a $800 tax cut?

    Typical Bush policy?  No, typical moron response. 

     I made less than 41k last year, and I paid several thousand in taxes. It complete depends on how you file, if you are 1099 etc.

    That said, while I will directly benefit from Bush's tax cut, you have to realize that it is just a bandaid that will stimulate the economy falsely for a short period of time, considering that it will be funded by a 145 Billion BOND.

    The democrats will have to raise taxes to bail out the hole we are in when they take office next year, which will make people hate them, despite the fact that they are just trying to fix the problems of this disastrious presidency. Its a great political move for Bush right now. Makes him look good again, and the democrats look bad.

    Anytime you shuffle debt around to 'fix' the economy, you are just hiding the real problem.

    You really have no idea how economics work.  Lowering taxes does make the economy stronger.

    So the U.S. economy is at one of its strongest points ever right now, then.

    Pay no attention to the newspaper behind the curtain! There is no mortgage crisis! There is no economic downturn! Everything is fine! Now go vote Republican, so we can complete the job of turning America into a theocracy.

    @tster said:

    And it's not a temporary band aid.  If you need evidence look at the economy ever since Reaganomics was instituted.

    BWAHAHAHAHAhahaha ha ha ha... You're kidding, right?

    Oh, wait, you're serious. You come from money, don't you? You must. Only someone who has never had to worry about paying the rent could possibly think Reaganomics was a good thing. It basically traded in a bunch of economic protections and long-term strategic spending for a short-term boost, which went bust even before Reagan even got out of office. (See, for example, a stock market graph for 1987-88.) If it weren't for the determined effort of Republicans to claim that vicious senile bastard Reagan as a messiah, nobody would ever think his economic policies were very good.

    @tster said:

    Another interesting thing about government spending that you probably haven't though about, is that deficit spending is actually a good thing.  Not only has it propelled our economy to what it currently is (and by the way, our economy is currently extremely strong, especially in the long run)

    HAHAHAHA hA ha ha... Seriously, man, you're killing me. Even the Bush administration is starting to make noises about us being in a recession (a conclusion most people came to a few years ago). Real wages adjusted for inflation have fallen 3 of the past 4 years. The average American is now in debt, and banks are starting to foreclose on houses at a rate which alarms even them. (Banks don't like to foreclose when it's a buyer's market.) We're busily funneling money to third-world countries to shave a few pennies on production costs (without, of course, lowering executive salaries), and sitting around assuring ourselves that they don't know how to engineer or write code, so it's okay. We did the same things with Japan and Korea. Our grandchildren will think of India and China as technological marvels.

    Anyway, back to your drivel:

    @tster said:

    And I hate to tell you this... but this tax cut will only become law if your precious democrats agree to it.

    They aren't my precious Democrats. They probably aren't the precious Democrats of the poster you were quoting. I hate to break it to you, since you don't seem to get out much, but the Democrats are a bust. They haven't really opposed anything significant in the last six years. All three of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination either voted to invade Iraq or passed funding to stay there. (Hillary Clinton managed to do both, the others only avoided it by not being in office at the right times.) Quite frankly, the only people to whom the Democrats are precious are Republicans, because the Democrats prevent a third party from starting up to claim the left vote now that the Democrats have abandoned it.

    @tster said:

    BTW, I don't know why I said $100-$200, but the point still stands.  If you pay $2000 in taxes/year.  Is it really fair to give you a $800 credit?  Credits like this are notorious good to the poor and lower middle class while making no difference to the upper middle class or the rich.  For intance, for you(from what I gather) this will be about a 10%-20% tax cut (me too!).  But to my boss this will be more like a 2%-2% cut.  Not that he ends up with a huge amount more money than I do at the end of the year.  I made about $50,000 this year including some capital gains, and my total take home from that will be about $40,000 (using very rough numbers here and I live alone and have no Dependants).  But my boss and his wife both work and together make about $200,000/year.  So they end up paying crazy amounts of taxes and their take home will be more like 140,000.   But that's two people, so you can consider it's more like 80,000/person.   So even though they make 4x what I make, they only bring home 2x what I make. 

    Oh, the poor babies! Quick, let's all put in donations to get them a fruit basket! Clearly they deserve a much larger tax cut! Otherwise their conspicuous consumption might have to be reigned in slightly!

    During the immediate postwar years, which fruitcakes like you always consider to be the golden era of American economics, they would have paid much more than they do now. (Maximum marginal tax rate from 1951 to 1963: 95%; Maximum marginal tax rate now: 35%.) And people making less than you would have paid much less. And what did we get out of it? A big successful middle class, a space program, silicon valley... I'm not sure what we'll get out of our "tax the poor and pay Dick Cheney's friends" programs, but I doubt it'll be anything our descendants will be proud of. 

    Look, if you want to make greed your god we can't stop you. But stop pretending that a world which makes you rich will be good for everyone, okay?



  • @The Vicar said:

    @tster said:

    Lowering taxes does make the economy stronger.

    So the U.S. economy is at one of its strongest points ever right now, then.

    Pay no attention to the newspaper behind the curtain! There is no mortgage crisis! There is no economic downturn! Everything is fine! Now go vote Republican, so we can complete the job of turning America into a theocracy.

     It would probably be more appropriate to say that lowering taxes and beating the shit out of sleazeball investors and real estate speculators makes the economy stronger.  Unless you can show that previous tax cuts were responsible for jacked up real-estate prices and morons buying things they couldn't afford with crazy interest rates...

    Now, with respect to these tax credits.  I imagine they won't continue long-term.  One, maybe two years. Is $800 per person in one year going to have a noticeable benefit?



  • Is the economy doing well?  yes.  If everyone is so poor than how come everyone I know is better of now than 5 years ago?  And yeah, I come from money.  I mean, if you count a high school teacher and a juvenile probation officer "money."  We fed ourself with the silver spoon of... uh...  well I don't really remember because I was too busy working every day after work so that I could afford to put gas in my car and pay for insurance so that I could drive myself to a better high school than the one that I should have gone to.  Then I worked some more to buy a computer to do the homework and learn so that I could go to a good college.   And when I went ot the college they gave me a lot of money because I did really well on the SATs and what not.  But do you think that they gave my anything like they give the poor people?  Full room and board and all you have to do it walk down to the computer lab after class and sit there and collect a pay check paid for by the government?   Fuck no.  After my freshman yeah I got a job programming so that I could afford the insane tuition.  So all through college I worked my ass off, stayed up late doing homework, didn't have time to go to parties and get drunk like all the other people.  And then I get out in the world and I might make more than other people!  Now the government comes (and gun point, with the threat of throwing you in jail if you don't obey) and says, "Give me 40% of every pay check (PS federal income tax isn't the only tax)."  and I say, what the fuck could you be doing with that much of my money.   And they say, "Roads, defense, judicial system, police, fire, education."   And I say, "fine, I like all that...  but if you just took 10% of everyone's paycheck you could do all that, why do you want 4 times that?   And they say, "Oh, those people that didn't work as hard as you during school.  Those people that fucked off in class, those people that dropped out because they couldn't work all night on a paper, those people that did drugs instead of studying on the weekends...  they don't make very much.  And because of that, we aren't going to take very much from them (you would be surprised how many people pay $0 taxes).   And I say, "Well that's fucked up...  but still, that doesn't account for all that 40%."  And then the government says, "Well, those same people...  They have the RIGHT to the same health care as you, and they need a little help to buy their Doritos and their beer.  And see, those low life mothers in the inner city that have 8 children to 6 different men...  you need to feed them and their children.  Yeah, you might have worked hard and earned lots of money, but we know how to spend it better than you".  Don't you see?  The government is smarter than you are, and we will spend your money for you...  the money that you give your life for.  If you think about it, I work all day monday and tuesday for someone else.  I give 2 whole days of my life every week to the lazy bastards and crack addicts.  So the next time you think about accusing someone of "coming from money" just because they don't want the government stealing their money, why don't you just not.



  • IIRC, the amount given out last time wasn't really given out, just advanced.  Everyone still owed their taxes anyways, but just owed more money (or was paid back less) because they had been advanced $500.  I had one guy who claimed he got a $500 check from the government (proof that Bush is a good president, because what other president sent you money in the mail), which seems like he was full of shit.  In the end, it seems like that would affect a grand total of nothing, because noone's getting more or less than they would normally.  Didn't look into it because I didn't care and I wasn't affected by it (I was around 18 at the time, in college). 

    Correct me if I'm wrong.  I have the feeling I am, because of the already existing posts.



  • @tster said:

    Is the economy doing well?  yes.  If everyone is so poor than how come everyone I know is better of now than 5 years ago?  And yeah, I come from money.  I mean, if you count a high school teacher and a juvenile probation officer "money."  We fed ourself with the silver spoon of... uh...  well I don't really remember because I was too busy working every day after work so that I could afford to put gas in my car and pay for insurance so that I could drive myself to a better high school than the one that I should have gone to.  Then I worked some more to buy a computer to do the homework and learn so that I could go to a good college.   And when I went ot the college they gave me a lot of money because I did really well on the SATs and what not.  But do you think that they gave my anything like they give the poor people?  Full room and board and all you have to do it walk down to the computer lab after class and sit there and collect a pay check paid for by the government?   Fuck no.  After my freshman yeah I got a job programming so that I could afford the insane tuition.  So all through college I worked my ass off, stayed up late doing homework, didn't have time to go to parties and get drunk like all the other people.  And then I get out in the world and I might make more than other people!  Now the government comes (and gun point, with the threat of throwing you in jail if you don't obey) and says, "Give me 40% of every pay check (PS federal income tax isn't the only tax)."  and I say, what the fuck could you be doing with that much of my money.   And they say, "Roads, defense, judicial system, police, fire, education."   And I say, "fine, I like all that...  but if you just took 10% of everyone's paycheck you could do all that, why do you want 4 times that?   And they say, "Oh, those people that didn't work as hard as you during school.  Those people that fucked off in class, those people that dropped out because they couldn't work all night on a paper, those people that did drugs instead of studying on the weekends...  they don't make very much.  And because of that, we aren't going to take very much from them (you would be surprised how many people pay $0 taxes).   And I say, "Well that's fucked up...  but still, that doesn't account for all that 40%."  And then the government says, "Well, those same people...  They have the RIGHT to the same health care as you, and they need a little help to buy their Doritos and their beer.  And see, those low life mothers in the inner city that have 8 children to 6 different men...  you need to feed them and their children.  Yeah, you might have worked hard and earned lots of money, but we know how to spend it better than you".  Don't you see?  The government is smarter than you are, and we will spend your money for you...  the money that you give your life for.  If you think about it, I work all day monday and tuesday for someone else.  I give 2 whole days of my life every week to the lazy bastards and crack addicts.  So the next time you think about accusing someone of "coming from money" just because they don't want the government stealing their money, why don't you just not.

    I was going to reply to your earlier post, but after reading this, your just a immature kid with no clue about the real world, so I won't waste my time.
     



  • @Jonathan Holland said:

    @tster said:

    Is the economy doing well?  yes.  If everyone is so poor than how come everyone I know is better of now than 5 years ago?  And yeah, I come from money.  I mean, if you count a high school teacher and a juvenile probation officer "money."  We fed ourself with the silver spoon of... uh...  well I don't really remember because I was too busy working every day after work so that I could afford to put gas in my car and pay for insurance so that I could drive myself to a better high school than the one that I should have gone to.  Then I worked some more to buy a computer to do the homework and learn so that I could go to a good college.   And when I went ot the college they gave me a lot of money because I did really well on the SATs and what not.  But do you think that they gave my anything like they give the poor people?  Full room and board and all you have to do it walk down to the computer lab after class and sit there and collect a pay check paid for by the government?   Fuck no.  After my freshman yeah I got a job programming so that I could afford the insane tuition.  So all through college I worked my ass off, stayed up late doing homework, didn't have time to go to parties and get drunk like all the other people.  And then I get out in the world and I might make more than other people!  Now the government comes (and gun point, with the threat of throwing you in jail if you don't obey) and says, "Give me 40% of every pay check (PS federal income tax isn't the only tax)."  and I say, what the fuck could you be doing with that much of my money.   And they say, "Roads, defense, judicial system, police, fire, education."   And I say, "fine, I like all that...  but if you just took 10% of everyone's paycheck you could do all that, why do you want 4 times that?   And they say, "Oh, those people that didn't work as hard as you during school.  Those people that fucked off in class, those people that dropped out because they couldn't work all night on a paper, those people that did drugs instead of studying on the weekends...  they don't make very much.  And because of that, we aren't going to take very much from them (you would be surprised how many people pay $0 taxes).   And I say, "Well that's fucked up...  but still, that doesn't account for all that 40%."  And then the government says, "Well, those same people...  They have the RIGHT to the same health care as you, and they need a little help to buy their Doritos and their beer.  And see, those low life mothers in the inner city that have 8 children to 6 different men...  you need to feed them and their children.  Yeah, you might have worked hard and earned lots of money, but we know how to spend it better than you".  Don't you see?  The government is smarter than you are, and we will spend your money for you...  the money that you give your life for.  If you think about it, I work all day monday and tuesday for someone else.  I give 2 whole days of my life every week to the lazy bastards and crack addicts.  So the next time you think about accusing someone of "coming from money" just because they don't want the government stealing their money, why don't you just not.

    I was going to reply to your earlier post, but after reading this, your just a immature kid with no clue about the real world, so I won't waste my time.
     

    Oh no!  my feelings are hurt.  I'll never recover.  Don't be so egotistical as to think that that actually bothers me.



  • I think The Vicar just hit a nerve.  But as far as single-line-wrapped-20-times rants go, that's probably the only one I've read all the way through.  Good show.



  • @vt_mruhlin said:

    I think The Vicar just hit a nerve.  But as far as single-line-wrapped-20-times rants go, that's probably the only one I've read all the way through.  Good show.

    Thanks!  I've been told so many times that I come from a rich family, it really gets old.  I should probably write 1 really good polished version of that and just copy+paste, but I'm glad you enjoyed it :) 



  • @tster said:

    Another interesting thing about government spending that you probably haven't though about, is that deficit spending is actually a good thing.  Not only has it propelled our economy to what it currently is (and by the way, our economy is currently extremely strong, especially in the long run), but most top economists think that one of Clinton's smartest moves was cutting back the surplus through tax cuts.  After a decade of insane growth in the economy the government had to much money, and Clinton and Greenspan purposefully decreased the surplus.

     

    That's true to a point, but you don't want deficits to get too big, or else the borrowing ends up crowding out other investments in the economy, which is a bad thing.  OTOH, a surplus means that the government is taking money out of the economy.  In small doses, where they use it to retire debt, this isn't a bad thing, but you don't want either case to be too extreme.

     



  • @The Vicar said:


    So the U.S. economy is at one of its strongest points ever right now, then.

    Pay no attention to the newspaper behind the curtain! There is no mortgage crisis! There is no economic downturn! Everything is fine! Now go vote Republican, so we can complete the job of turning America into a theocracy.

    While the mortgage crisis is certainly very bad for certain banks and individuals, it doesn't appear to be able to kill the entire economy.  It's too big and too diverse.  Case in point.  The easy credit (which was a big contributor to the mortgage crisis) also contributed to a falling dollar.  One result of that is that US exports are way up.  This helps to counterbalance some of the negative effects of the mortage market.

    @The Vicar said:


    @tster said:

    And it's not a temporary band aid. If you need evidence look at the economy ever since Reaganomics was instituted.

    BWAHAHAHAHAhahaha ha ha ha... You're kidding, right?

    Oh, wait, you're serious. You come from money, don't you? You must. Only someone who has never had to worry about paying the rent could possibly think Reaganomics was a good thing. It basically traded in a bunch of economic protections and long-term strategic spending for a short-term boost, which went bust even before Reagan even got out of office. (See, for example, a stock market graph for 1987-88.) If it weren't for the determined effort of Republicans to claim that vicious senile bastard Reagan as a messiah, nobody would ever think his economic policies were very good.

     

    So the market correction outweighs all of the growth in the economy (including tax receipts, even though rates were reduced!).  Your so-called trade-off just shows your ignorance, or your unwillingness to see reality.

    @The Vicar said:

     

    @tster said:

    Another interesting thing about government spending that you probably haven't though about, is that deficit spending is actually a good thing. Not only has it propelled our economy to what it currently is (and by the way, our economy is currently extremely strong, especially in the long run)

    HAHAHAHA hA ha ha... Seriously, man, you're killing me. Even the Bush administration is starting to make noises about us being in a recession (a conclusion most people came to a few years ago). Real wages adjusted for inflation have fallen 3 of the past 4 years. The average American is now in debt, and banks are starting to foreclose on houses at a rate which alarms even them. (Banks don't like to foreclose when it's a buyer's market.) We're busily funneling money to third-world countries to shave a few pennies on production costs (without, of course, lowering executive salaries), and sitting around assuring ourselves that they don't know how to engineer or write code, so it's okay. We did the same things with Japan and Korea. Our grandchildren will think of India and China as technological marvels.

    Well, some are talking about recession, but those are mostly just repeating what they've heard.  Most responsible forecasters, such as Bernanke, are saying that we aren't looking at recession, but slower growth--probably ~2% instead of ~3-4%.  I'm not sure why you think that you might be able to stop developing economies from competing with established industries, unless you're advocating protectionism, which is pretty much always a path to recession or worse.  We have to adapt and improve, just like they are.  Look at cars.  Toyota is now one of the top manufacturers of cars in the US.   

    @The Vicar said:

    Anyway, back to your drivel:

    @tster said:

    And I hate to tell you this... but this tax cut will only become law if your precious democrats agree to it.

    They aren't my precious Democrats. They probably aren't the precious Democrats of the poster you were quoting. I hate to break it to you, since you don't seem to get out much, but the Democrats are a bust. They haven't really opposed anything significant in the last six years. All three of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination either voted to invade Iraq or passed funding to stay there. (Hillary Clinton managed to do both, the others only avoided it by not being in office at the right times.) Quite frankly, the only people to whom the Democrats are precious are Republicans, because the Democrats prevent a third party from starting up to claim the left vote now that the Democrats have abandoned it.

    This Democrat=Republican is a common trope on the Internet.  It usually means that the poster is out on one extreme or another.  Depending on your perspective, this can be more or less true.  People tend to look at European parliamentary systems and see the multitude of specialized parties, and think that because we only have 2 parties, those views aren't represented in American politics.  They are there, just less obvious.  There are certainly far-left factions of the Democrats, just like there are far-right Republicans.  These factions just form at levels lower than the party level.

    I'd argue that the farther left parts of the Democratic party exerted significant control of the party in 2007.  Consider how many times defunding/retreating from Iraq was voted upon.  Or voting to remove secret ballots in union organizing.  Or expanding a program for health care for children to middle class children and adults.  I'm sure you (or someone) will respond that these are middle of the road issues, and if you were in Europe, you might be correct.  Either way, it depends on your perspective, and that's mine. :)

    @The Vicar said:


    @tster said:

    BTW, I don't know why I said $100-$200, but the point still stands. If you pay $2000 in taxes/year. Is it really fair to give you a $800 credit? Credits like this are notorious good to the poor and lower middle class while making no difference to the upper middle class or the rich. For intance, for you(from what I gather) this will be about a 10%-20% tax cut (me too!). But to my boss this will be more like a 2%-2% cut. Not that he ends up with a huge amount more money than I do at the end of the year. I made about $50,000 this year including some capital gains, and my total take home from that will be about $40,000 (using very rough numbers here and I live alone and have no Dependants). But my boss and his wife both work and together make about $200,000/year. So they end up paying crazy amounts of taxes and their take home will be more like 140,000. But that's two people, so you can consider it's more like 80,000/person. So even though they make 4x what I make, they only bring home 2x what I make.

    Oh, the poor babies! Quick, let's all put in donations to get them a fruit basket! Clearly they deserve a much larger tax cut! Otherwise their conspicuous consumption might have to be reigned in slightly!

    During the immediate postwar years, which fruitcakes like you always consider to be the golden era of American economics, they would have paid much more than they do now. (Maximum marginal tax rate from 1951 to 1963: 95%; Maximum marginal tax rate now: 35%.) And people making less than you would have paid much less. And what did we get out of it? A big successful middle class, a space program, silicon valley... I'm not sure what we'll get out of our "tax the poor and pay Dick Cheney's friends" programs, but I doubt it'll be anything our descendants will be proud of.

    Look, if you want to make greed your god we can't stop you. But stop pretending that a world which makes you rich will be good for everyone, okay?

    LOL:   "tax the poor and pay Dick Cheney's friends".  How much tax do the poor really pay?  Another feature of our modern economy is that there is remarkable income mobility.  Many people are able to move out of lower income quintiles.  We hear people say that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, but this is a very silly statement.  Of course, there will be people who continue to get richer (it's basically a function of the number system...there's always something higher).  But they neglect to mention that "the poor" are not always the same people from year to year.  Many of those people move up and start doing better for themselves.

    In polls Americans tend claim to not to want to  'soak the rich,' in part because they someday hope to be rich.  Of course, most of us don't make it, but that's beside the point.  In any case, it shouldn't be the job of the tax code to decide, or really even influence, who gets rich and who stays poor.  Its job is to fund the government, while doing minimal harm to the rest of the economy.



  • @tster said:

    people paying off debts does help the economy.  It frees up bank capital to invest in businesses and other investments.

    This should be true. It really should. Unfortunately our entire system of finance is based around falsifying this statement, with some truly horrible effects. People paying off debts actually reduces the amount of capital a bank has, by a factor of ten times the amount they pay off. Yes, you read that right, and yes, it's as horribly wrong as it sounds. Nobody in high finance wants you to pay off your debts; the bank is far richer because you owe them money than they would be if you paid it back (and that's before we consider your interest payments, although they want those too).

    Watch Money as Debt - it's right there in the title. People owing debts is the foundation of what the money in your pocket means. And the whole system is insane.



  • Re: (some crap about politics and economy)

    @asuffield said:

    Watch Money as Debt

    The Real WTF is how that Super Mario 64 speedrun video manages to come up as "related" to just about anything you can think of.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Well, some are talking about recession, but those are mostly just repeating what they've heard.  Most responsible forecasters, such as Bernanke, are saying that we aren't looking at recession, but slower growth--probably ~2% instead of ~3-4%.

    Bernanke is the chairman of the federal reserve board. Being publicly alarmist would be about the worst thing he could do. People put a lot of weight behind his words.

    Citing him as a responsible forecaster is  misleading.


     



  • @tster said:

    Is the economy doing well?  yes.  If everyone is so poor than how come everyone I know is better of now than 5 years ago?  And yeah, I come from money.  I mean, if you count a high school teacher and a juvenile probation officer "money."  We fed ourself with the silver spoon of... uh...  well I don't really remember because I was too busy working every day after work so that I could afford to put gas in my car and pay for insurance so that I could drive myself to a better high school than the one that I should have gone to.  Then I worked some more to buy a computer to do the homework and learn so that I could go to a good college.   And when I went ot the college they gave me a lot of money because I did really well on the SATs and what not.  But do you think that they gave my anything like they give the poor people?  Full room and board and all you have to do it walk down to the computer lab after class and sit there and collect a pay check paid for by the government?   Fuck no.  After my freshman yeah I got a job programming so that I could afford the insane tuition.  So all through college I worked my ass off, stayed up late doing homework, didn't have time to go to parties and get drunk like all the other people.  And then I get out in the world and I might make more than other people!  Now the government comes (and gun point, with the threat of throwing you in jail if you don't obey) and says, "Give me 40% of every pay check (PS federal income tax isn't the only tax)."  and I say, what the fuck could you be doing with that much of my money.   And they say, "Roads, defense, judicial system, police, fire, education."   And I say, "fine, I like all that...  but if you just took 10% of everyone's paycheck you could do all that, why do you want 4 times that?   And they say, "Oh, those people that didn't work as hard as you during school.  Those people that fucked off in class, those people that dropped out because they couldn't work all night on a paper, those people that did drugs instead of studying on the weekends...  they don't make very much.  And because of that, we aren't going to take very much from them (you would be surprised how many people pay $0 taxes).   And I say, "Well that's fucked up...  but still, that doesn't account for all that 40%."  And then the government says, "Well, those same people...  They have the RIGHT to the same health care as you, and they need a little help to buy their Doritos and their beer.  And see, those low life mothers in the inner city that have 8 children to 6 different men...  you need to feed them and their children.  Yeah, you might have worked hard and earned lots of money, but we know how to spend it better than you".  Don't you see?  The government is smarter than you are, and we will spend your money for you...  the money that you give your life for.  If you think about it, I work all day monday and tuesday for someone else.  I give 2 whole days of my life every week to the lazy bastards and crack addicts.  So the next time you think about accusing someone of "coming from money" just because they don't want the government stealing their money, why don't you just not.

    I tend to think there are three mindsets regarding welfare.

    You are in the first group, you are outright egoistic and jealous if someone else gets something for free you have to pay for, and I totally see where you're coming from.

    In the second group, there are people that to varying degrees support redistribution, because they have all these questions in their heads ("What if I lose my job/get seriously ill/whatever?". They are as egoistic as you are, just less optimistic and/or less successful.

    Then there's the third group, to which I would count myself. And to say it right away: We are no less egoistic. Some of us might bring humanity, human rights and all that sort of thing into an argument about welfare, but if you dig deep enough you'll find that the essential thought is just that my personal living quality is somehow a function of the "wellness" of the whole society.() For example, if everyone was educated better, the GDP would most likely rise, and in last consequence, I'll be able to increase my living standard. Also if everyone had a decent living I might end up not getting shot by someone who needs some $ for his next fix.

    So, in the end, we probably all do want the same thing.

    () Maybe not everyone, but somehow I never believed in Altruism.



  • Oh yeah, I forgot to mention.  Anybody that points to the DOW industrial average for 87-88 as proof that Reaganomics is a failure, is either incredibly dumb or thinks that the people he is talking to are incredibly dumb.  How did you miss the other 20 years since Reaganomics? 

    TDC,

    I see your point, and that's why I certainly like the idea of providing education to every child.  I even like state colleges that are extremely cheap to go to and provide assistance to people that can't afford it.  Some of these state universities are very good too.  However, I don't think that giving a welfare mother more money because she got knocked up again by some gang banger is going to have a positive impact on society.  It will do exactly the opposite.  Why do we reward bad behavior and punish good behavior? 



  • @tster said:

    Why do we reward bad behavior and punish good behavior? 
     

    Programs that help kids without also helping their parents are too hard to implement, so we just throw money at the parents and pretend we're doing a good thing. 



  • @tster said:

    TDC,

    I see your point, and that's why I certainly like the idea of providing education to every child.  I even like state colleges that are extremely cheap to go to and provide assistance to people that can't afford it.  Some of these state universities are very good too.  However, I don't think that giving a welfare mother more money because she got knocked up again by some gang banger is going to have a positive impact on society.  It will do exactly the opposite.  Why do we reward bad behavior and punish good behavior? 

    And this is exactly the difference between our mindsets. What you are saying is absolutely right. What I am however suggesting is that IF that "welfare mother" was actually better educated, had a nice job, and so on, she maybe would not behave bad, but good.

    The solution is of course not to redistribute everything until everyone is happy, that won't work. You have to make sure that there is just no real need for redistribution (that does not at all imply egalitarianism). The "welfare mother" should not be rewarded for her bad behaviour, instead one should try to make sure her children will make a better job. That's not easy, and sending her a big cheque alone won't do.

    You do not like to see your money given to somebody who proved to be "bad". How is it if your money is spend so that the next guy will more likely be "good" right away? Free and good(!) education (all the way up to universities, that is) is maybe one way to achieve that. There is of course more to it.

    There certainly is a connection between the quality of the upbringing and the resulting person. (And education alone will probably not be able to "fix" that) So who will likely do a better job at upbringing children, someone who works two shifts a day, or someone who actually has enough time and money? Your welfare mother might be a lost cause, but can you really "write her off" and still expect her children to be much different? 



  • I know people that have grown up in that kind of house and have turned in to productive members of society.  I'm not saying it's easy.  But I think that the current education system allows for someone to make something of themselves no matter what their background.  (Oprah for instance grew up with a welfare mother, and it now a billionare philanthropist).  Obviously not every child is as extrodinary as Oprah, but I have had friends in school that came from a similar environment and who are now gainfully employed or working through college just like myself.  



  • @TDC said:

    And this is exactly the difference between our mindsets. What you are saying is absolutely right. What I am however suggesting is that IF that "welfare mother" was actually better educated, had a nice job, and so on, she maybe would not behave bad, but good.

    The solution is of course not to redistribute everything until everyone is happy, that won't work. You have to make sure that there is just no real need for redistribution (that does not at all imply egalitarianism). The "welfare mother" should not be rewarded for her bad behaviour, instead one should try to make sure her children will make a better job. That's not easy, and sending her a big cheque alone won't do.

    You do not like to see your money given to somebody who proved to be "bad". How is it if your money is spend so that the next guy will more likely be "good" right away? Free and good(!) education (all the way up to universities, that is) is maybe one way to achieve that. There is of course more to it.

    There certainly is a connection between the quality of the upbringing and the resulting person. (And education alone will probably not be able to "fix" that) So who will likely do a better job at upbringing children, someone who works two shifts a day, or someone who actually has enough time and money? Your welfare mother might be a lost cause, but can you really "write her off" and still expect her children to be much different? 

     

    The problem is that the welfare mother had free education at least through high school, and probably didn't take advantage of it.  She may have even graduated (but probably not if she started having kids early enough).  If someone didn't learn to read and write proficiently through high school, it won't do any good to offer a free ride to college.  It's just setting them up to fail.  Besides, there are already lots of opportunities for someone from that background to get help paying for education.

    The problem is that people need to be interested in helping themselves to get out of poverty, etc, and many of them don't seem interested in doing that.  There are whole subcultures that discourage people from getting the education that would help them out of their situations.  I think that programs like school vouchers give a good way for those interested in doing something for themselves to improve their situation.  Unfortunately, bureaucracies like the teachers unions have grown powerful enough that they can stop nearly any attempt to improve the schools that might highlight any incompetence among their members. 



  • Sure, some people "overcome" their problems (problems that other people simply don't have!) But why do only some people get it right themselves, while many others don't? Why are some people not motivated enough to actually learn something? Do you think they are inherently stupid, and there's nothing we can do about it?

    Just because there currently are free schools, that doesn't mean that they are actually good enough. Even if you have all the equipment money can buy, it's all worthless if the teachers are themselves not motivated or educated well enough. If they just don't care. Of course many people still have success, some aided because their parents are rich, some because their parents are smart, and some all by themselves - but how can you expect everyone to be that fortunate?

    I did not say it was impossible, just that it is harder, and if something is harder, more people will fail. You say "people need to be interested in helping themselves to get out of poverty". Yes, they do, but why? It's just an additonal hurdle, and it's high enough that quite some people fall over it. More people would succeed, if it wasn't there.

    I refuse to believe that (barring serious genetic defects) people can by DNA be so stupid that it is impossible for them to get how percentages work. That is ridiculous.

     And when we're talking about success.. that doesn't even mean that those who do get a degree, who do get a well paid job, are actually good enough educated either. This site is the very proof of that. 



  • @TDC said:

    Sure, some people "overcome" their problems (problems that other people simply don't have!) But why do only some people get it right themselves, while many others don't? Why are some people not motivated enough to actually learn something? Do you think they are inherently stupid, and there's nothing we can do about it?

    Just because there currently are free schools, that doesn't mean that they are actually good enough. Even if you have all the equipment money can buy, it's all worthless if the teachers are themselves not motivated or educated well enough. If they just don't care. Of course many people still have success, some aided because their parents are rich, some because their parents are smart, and some all by themselves - but how can you expect everyone to be that fortunate?

    I think that there are many reasons why people fail, or simply don't care about improving their lives (at least, for our definition of improving).  What I object to is the emphasis on throwing more money at these problems.  A typical government program tends to go like this:

    1. A problem is recognized, and something must be done.
    2. Someone proposes doing something.  Since it's something, it must be done!
    3. Results of #2 show failure.
    4. Conclusions:  we must need more of #2.  Increase funding.
    5. Goto 3.
    The problem is certainly not a lack of education funding.  Some of the best funded schools have the worst results (see the DC school system for one of the best examples).  Some people (including me and tster, apparently) object to the focible takings of the money we earn to be put into these failing programs.  And that's not even considering issues like the 'proper role of government' and what might or might not be within the scope of the Constitution.  The issue isn't as simple as, support more government or you don't care about people.

    @TDC said:

    I did not say it was impossible, just that it is harder, and if something is harder, more people will fail. You say "people need to be interested in helping themselves to get out of poverty". Yes, they do, but why? It's just an additonal hurdle, and it's high enough that quite some people fall over it. More people would succeed, if it wasn't there.

    I refuse to believe that (barring serious genetic defects) people can by DNA be so stupid that it is impossible for them to get how percentages work. That is ridiculous.

     And when we're talking about success.. that doesn't even mean that those who do get a degree, who do get a well paid job, are actually good enough educated either. This site is the very proof of that. 

    They have to participate, because if they don't, then as soon as you stop helping them, they'll fall right back down.  And you also have to be careful not to incentivize bad behavior.  As tster mentioned, one of the consequences of welfare as it was begun in the 1960s was that it was encouraging more women to have children to increase their welfare payments, which simply reduced their independence, and increased their dependence on the government. 

    Not to mention the effects of popular culture, which often portrays education in a negative light.  Witness the common complaint among African-American communities that students who succeed are harrasesd for not acting black.  How much money do we need to throw at that problem before it's fixed?  And when will we stop the failed programs that aren't helping?  Why do we always need a new program instead of replacing the junk that doesn't work?



  •  I absolutely agree with you, in that governments (all over the world) tend to spend money to hide symptoms (and often enough, even fail at that), instead of attempting to solve the real issues. 




  • @TDC said:

     I absolutely agree with you, in that governments (all over the world) tend to spend money to hide symptoms

     

    A common misconception. Politicians aren't even trying to treat or hide symptoms. Their objective is the appearance of action, nothing more. Appearances are what get votes, not effectiveness. 



  • @TDC said:

    I refuse to believe that (barring serious genetic defects) people can by DNA be so stupid that it is impossible for them to get how percentages work. That is ridiculous.

    Unfortunately some people just really are dumb.  Not that they can't graduate high school and get a good enough job to feed a family.  I could name plenty of jobs that you would be fine at that pay enough to so that if you and you rwife worked you could support perhaps 2 children (3 if your frugal probably).  

    @TDC said:

    I did not say it was impossible, just that it is harder, and if something is harder, more people will fail. You say "people need to be interested in helping themselves to get out of poverty". Yes, they do, but why?
     

    Why do they need to want to help themselves?  Because motivation has to at least partially come from within.  For instance, if you tried to teach me a new programming language, I would only actually learn it if I wanted to.  Otherwise I would just go through the motions.  Too many urban youth are "going through the motions" of school (some aren't even bothering to do that).  And it's a cultural thing.  As someone said, black kids who excel (sp?) at school are ridiculed for acting too white (It's actually a little offensive to consider that "acting white" is suppose to be some kind of insult).  Bill Crosby has been fighting this and has lost a lot of standing in the Black community.  

     

    What I'm trying to say is that the inner cities are dominated by a culture of failure.  And this culture of failure is at least partially created by the welfare system.   These people are in the family business, and the family business is
    sitting at home, having babies, and collecting checks from me and you.  So when a black man says that the state of blacks in America today is caused by white people oppressing him, he's right.  But not for the reason's he'll give (unless he is smart like Bill Crosby).  He'll say racism, Slavery, and racial profiling are the causes.  (Yes, many black leaders are still saying slavery is the reason that the American jails have an unproportanate number of blacks.  At least the ones that have come to accept that the jails have a higher proportion of blacks because a higher proportion of blacks commit violent crimes.)  Yeah, blacks are oppressed by white people today.  And the tool is the welfare state.  By giving our welfare and free housing, and free food, a comfortable bed, a couch, and a TV, we are pretty much guaranteeing that they won't ever try and make something better of themselves.

     

    I once read a book by a prominant conservative talk show host (don't remember who) and he was telling a story about his early twenties when he was liberal and had become a social worker.  He was living in a cheap apartment at the time, using a foam mattress (the kind you can get for like $10), an egg crate for a night stand, and an old chest of drawers from a garage sale for his clothes.  I don't think he had a TV either.  And he went out to a new family to get them the provisions they need. He went to his boss and asked showed him the list of stuff that they needed.  And his boss said, that's pretty short!  And the he said, Well, all they really need is a bed, a couple chairs, and a table, because they already have a stove and a refidgerator.  And the boss said, do they have a TV?  No.  Well, they need a TV, and a couch.  Do they have a microwave?  No.  Well, they need one of those!  etc. etc.

    I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at here.  He was working hard and didn't have a lot of the things that the government was just going to give people. 



  • @asuffield said:

    @TDC said:

     I absolutely agree with you, in that governments (all over the world) tend to spend money to hide symptoms

     

    A common misconception. Politicians aren't even trying to treat or hide symptoms. Their objective is the appearance of action, nothing more. Appearances are what get votes, not effectiveness. 

     

    I think that's exactly what he said.  Hiding symtoms = appearance.  Hiding symptoms != effectiveness. 



  • @tster said:

    @asuffield said:

    @TDC said:

     I absolutely agree with you, in that governments (all over the world) tend to spend money to hide symptoms

     

    A common misconception. Politicians aren't even trying to treat or hide symptoms. Their objective is the appearance of action, nothing more. Appearances are what get votes, not effectiveness. 

     

    I think that's exactly what he said.  Hiding symtoms = appearance.  Hiding symptoms != effectiveness. 

    A horse is an animal, not every animal is a horse. 



  • @asuffield said:

    @tster said:

    @asuffield said:

    @TDC said:

     I absolutely agree with you, in that governments (all over the world) tend to spend money to hide symptoms

     

    A common misconception. Politicians aren't even trying to treat or hide symptoms. Their objective is the appearance of action, nothing more. Appearances are what get votes, not effectiveness. 

     

    I think that's exactly what he said.  Hiding symtoms = appearance.  Hiding symptoms != effectiveness. 

    A horse is an animal, not every animal is a horse. 

     

    what the fuck are you trying to say?  

    Question for you:  Have you ever once admitted that you were wrong.  Or even that you misunderstood someone? 



  • @tster said:

    Why do they need to want to help themselves?  Because motivation has to at least partially come from within.

    I didn't mean to say that there was no motivation needed to learn at all, just that the additional motivation to overcome additional hurdles is maybe too much to ask for. I for example can't remember I needed much motivation before university, others probably did.

    I also think motivation is something that in itself has to be learned. Babies get everything for free and children have to learn that in the real world, to get A you need to do B. Parents often fail at that, and as you said: It doesn't help that it's "untrue". You don't have to force motivation on children either. Most small children have so many questions: Why is the sky blue? How does a plane fly? Things like that. A good answer would be something like "Well, that's rather complicated, and you'll learn that in school later on, but simplified it works like this.." or so. That way they will a) keep asking questions - and having questions is the best motivation to find out the answers - and b) know why they go to school. If of course mommy always says "shut up, I want to watch that talk show"...

    It appears that education relies too much on sensible parenting, despite evidence of the contrary. Boarding schools for example (where much of the parenting is done by trained staff) produce (in average) better students. (Not that I would've like to be on one).

     

    I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at here.  He was working hard and didn't have a lot of the things that the government was just going to give people. 

     

    Yes, social spending should be aimed at helping people to achieve a good standard of living themselves, instead of just boosting it up for them. I agree with that. That is what I meant with "trying to hide the symptoms". The symptom is that they have no job and are rather poor. Giving them a microwave will not fix that. Now they have no job, are poor and have a microwave. Meanwhile their children (who could maybe have better books, or an additonal teacher for the money you just spent buying 1000 microwaves) are likely to end up in the same situation in 20 years. What will you do then, buy 1000 robots?



  • @boomzilla said:

    As tster mentioned, one of the consequences of welfare as it was begun in the 1960s was that it was encouraging more women to have children to increase their welfare payments, which simply reduced their independence, and increased their dependence on the government.

    All that means is the amounts were set wrong. The welfare payments for having children should match the amount it costs to raise those children. If it's more, you get the problem you describe. If it's less, you get babies living in poverty.



  • @tster said:

    those low life mothers in the inner city that have 8 children to 6 different men...
    At first I thought you were just a nutcase Republican. But, wow, you're a misogynist to boot. Excellent!



  • @Jonathan Holland said:

    As a married lower middleclass software developer, I'm curious as to what the income cap is for these tax cuts, and if we get to apply them to our 2007 tax filing.

     $1600 means I'd about break even instead of having to pay this year.

    EDIT, from some news article:

     

    Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy
    Priorities, said the administration's plan would bypass or only give
    partial help to more than 40% of tax filers with the most modest
    incomes. Families of four making less than $40,950 would get partial
    help or nothing at all, he wrote.

     Typical Bush policy. Cut taxes to the people who can afford to pay them, and screw the poor folks.

     Good thing I'm the head of a household of 4 people and I make more than 41k.


     


     

     

    Is there some reason you believe that guy?  I've never hear of the "Center on Budget and Policy
    Priorities" before.  The two bottom tax rates would go from 15 and 28% to 10 and 15%.  The only way lower-income families don't get a tax break is if they already don't pay any taxes!  Thanks to "head of household", the poorest Americans are actually getting paid by the treasury!



  • @Domster said:

    @tster said:

    those low life mothers in the inner city that have 8 children to 6 different men...
    At first I thought you were just a nutcase Republican. But, wow, you're a misogynist to boot. Excellent!

     

    A woman who has eight children to six different fathers isn't a low life?  Setting the bar quite low, aren't we?  This situation doesn't just happen to people!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.