What a the 330 billion taxcut could have bought...

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
El Fenix when it comes to renegotiation time private contractors such as LockheedMartin always put the screws to the account. It's SOP. You actually make a good anti-privatization agruement by bringing this up. I have only woked for federal contractors and the waste is worse than Fed employees.

Re-pvskool Wrong. It's parental involment and discipline. Any non-mentally retared child should be able to get straight A's with the watered down camp snoopy curriculum tought in todays schools. All successful busniesses and people have discipline which a public school can't give.

spelling

really i think the largesse is due to a very uncompetitve market that rewards more the ability to spread funds over 300 congressional districts than actually saving the people of this country some money

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

I blame all this on income inequality. If you look at these issues as well as crime and dropout rates you'll see a direct coorelation to income. Low income = high crime in general. Is correlation causation? No, the chicken could have come first. But I know when someone has something to loose like a house, career, reputation etc they are more likely to tow the line and be a productive member of society. You dislike Unions and I favor them because they seek to put low/no skilled in the middle class. You dislike higher taxation on those who have a generous disposable income and I think redistribution to everyone also helps to balance things. Ok go ahead with the commie comments, but just know I think in order to recieve governmnet welfare you should work 40 hrs a week for it, hell , we could stop all lowskilled manufacturing jobs fleeing this country with one step. And Bring back text books from the 50's. Hard as hell.

unions looking out for low-skilled workers hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Fiancial aid for the states, healthcare for people who cant afford it, paid for teachers and educators... instead of the rich.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/29/tax_cuts/index.html

So you are saying the goverment can spend money better than the taxpayers?

What I'm saying is the article brings up a interesting point, go read before you start putting words in my mouth.

The article only speaks of the goverment spending the $350B. These interesting points you speak of are only goverment spending. I dont see how I put words in your mouth.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

I blame all this on income inequality. If you look at these issues as well as crime and dropout rates you'll see a direct coorelation to income. Low income = high crime in general. Is correlation causation? No, the chicken could have come first. But I know when someone has something to loose like a house, career, reputation etc they are more likely to tow the line and be a productive member of society. You dislike Unions and I favor them because they seek to put low/no skilled in the middle class. You dislike higher taxation on those who have a generous disposable income and I think redistribution to everyone also helps to balance things. Ok go ahead with the commie comments, but just know I think in order to recieve governmnet welfare you should work 40 hrs a week for it, hell , we could stop all lowskilled manufacturing jobs fleeing this country with one step. And Bring back text books from the 50's. Hard as hell.

unions looking out for low-skilled workers hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Fen=x you can do better than that, explain. I'm willing to change are you?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

41,000 income "gets" $1200 which is 3% of their income
63,000 income "gets" $1,100 which is <2% of their income
120,000 income "gets" $3,028 which is 2.5% of their income
170,00 income "gets" $3,148 which is <2% of their income
assuming 2 kids. (Source: AP/Deloitte & Touche)

I wonder why you MUST assume 2 kids? Oh I know . . . if you do not have 2 kids you pretty much get jack . . . unless of course you make 120K+. Medicaid is expensive b/c millions of American families are working AND poor (we will ignore old poor people for the moment). The working poor are actually EXCLUDED from the child tax credit. This tax cut is essentially painfully regressive b/c the people served by the program cutbacks are the ones LEAST likely to get anything of significance. The millions of people who do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private health insurance will get dimes a day from the tax cut. I guess they should have been making babies instead of trying to work their way out of poverty.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

41,000 income "gets" $1200 which is 3% of their income
63,000 income "gets" $1,100 which is <2% of their income
120,000 income "gets" $3,028 which is 2.5% of their income
170,00 income "gets" $3,148 which is <2% of their income
assuming 2 kids. (Source: AP/Deloitte & Touche)

I wonder why you MUST assume 2 kids? Oh I know . . . if you do not have 2 kids you pretty much get jack . . . unless of course you make 120K+. Medicaid is expensive b/c millions of American families are working AND poor (we will ignore old poor people for the moment). The working poor are actually EXCLUDED from the child tax credit. This tax cut is essentially painfully regressive b/c the people served by the program cutbacks are the ones LEAST likely to get anything of significance. The millions of people who do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private health insurance will get dimes a day from the tax cut. I guess they should have been making babies instead of trying to work their way out of poverty.

The numbers that are also missing is the remaining tax load left on these familys. I would guess that family at 41k would have near zero tax liability.

 

[308nato]

I really don't give a damn what *MY* hard earned money would have bought someone else.

What it is going to buy when it comes home to roost where it belongs is a nice little family vacation.

 

[YellowRose]

Man some of you are really stupid and I will let you all figure it out. Now what could they have done different with 350 billion.

1. 1 billion to each state to help with budgets.

2. 1 billion to 50 largest US cities for highway repair, parks, and new road and transportation projects.

3. 1 billion to each state for highway projects.

4. 1 billion dollars to each port of entry for upgrades,bridges and other infrastructure to speed commerce (appx. 20 billion total)
So far we are at 170 billion and we have a whole lot of people working and making good money. 180 billion to go.

5. 20 billion to the EPA for superfund sites and the cleanup of water in the nation.

6. 20 billion to the National Park System.

7. 20 billion for NASA

8. 20 billion for space research, material research and medical research at the Univ.'s

9. 50 billion for the VA to upgrade facilities and provide services to veterans.

10. 50 billion in reserve for future actions.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: YellowRose
Man some of you are really stupid and I will let you all figure it out. Now what could they have done different with 350 billion.

1. 1 billion to each state to help with budgets.

2. 1 billion to 50 largest US cities for highway repair, parks, and new road and transportation projects.

3. 1 billion to each state for highway projects.

4. 1 billion dollars to each port of entry for upgrades,bridges and other infrastructure to speed commerce (appx. 20 billion total)
So far we are at 170 billion and we have a whole lot of people working and making good money. 180 billion to go.

5. 20 billion to the EPA for superfund sites and the cleanup of water in the nation.

6. 20 billion to the National Park System.

7. 20 billion for NASA

8. 20 billion for space research, material research and medical research at the Univ.'s

9. 50 billion for the VA to upgrade facilities and provide services to veterans.

10. 50 billion in reserve for future actions.

So more spending is ok, but taxcuts to taxpayers is bad?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

41,000 income "gets" $1200 which is 3% of their income
63,000 income "gets" $1,100 which is <2% of their income
120,000 income "gets" $3,028 which is 2.5% of their income
170,00 income "gets" $3,148 which is <2% of their income
assuming 2 kids. (Source: AP/Deloitte & Touche)

I wonder why you MUST assume 2 kids? Oh I know . . . if you do not have 2 kids you pretty much get jack . . . unless of course you make 120K+. Medicaid is expensive b/c millions of American families are working AND poor (we will ignore old poor people for the moment). The working poor are actually EXCLUDED from the child tax credit. This tax cut is essentially painfully regressive b/c the people served by the program cutbacks are the ones LEAST likely to get anything of significance. The millions of people who do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private health insurance will get dimes a day from the tax cut. I guess they should have been making babies instead of trying to work their way out of poverty.

Typical class warfare

Would you care to show how much tax these "working poor" ,who are "excluded"

, pay in income taxes?

Also, "low-income families can qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which pays up to $4,200 a year."

Or, "...other tax cut provisions that reduce taxes on low-income Americans, noting that 3 million additional families will now pay no income tax at all."

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

CADguy,
I read today that the bill contained some formula that causes some low earners not to able to take the EIC. An oversight I suppose but there was a calculation indicating such. Ok.. I'll look for a link

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
I blame all this on income inequality. If you look at these issues as well as crime and dropout rates you'll see a direct coorelation to income. Low income = high crime in general. Is correlation causation? No, the chicken could have come first. But I know when someone has something to loose like a house, career, reputation etc they are more likely to tow the line and be a productive member of society. You dislike Unions and I favor them because they seek to put low/no skilled in the middle class. You dislike higher taxation on those who have a generous disposable income and I think redistribution to everyone also helps to balance things. Ok go ahead with the commie comments, but just know I think in order to recieve governmnet welfare you should work 40 hrs a week for it, hell , we could stop all lowskilled manufacturing jobs fleeing this country with one step. And Bring back text books from the 50's. Hard as hell.

Bullsh!t. Regardless of race, creed, or color - they are broke because they are losers, they have high crime because they are losers, their kids get a poor education because they are losers, they have single-parent familes because they are losers, and they want to steal everyone else's money because they are losers. Do you know these people? I do, I grew up with the white trash. All they want in life is to blame everyone or everything else for their problems, fight amongst themselves at every opportunity, and get a free ride. That's how they got to be where they are, that's why they stay where they are at, and that's why their children suffer from it.
I'm sorry, Carbonyl, but I'm sick to death of reading sh!t like what you just posted. Like it's entirely not her fault when (for example) she's a 23-year-old single mother of 3 (all different fathers) with a nasty crank habit and can't keep a job at McDonald's. Yep, that's a victim

Originally posted by: charrison
So more spending is ok, but taxcuts to taxpayers is bad?

Yellowrose most likely doesn't have to pay taxes, so raising (or not cutting) someone else's taxes is just fine with him/her. After all, we're just greedy bastards (with mortgages and debt) who need to "kick down" some of that wealth. It's just like this recent "temporary" tax measure that passed in my home county. More than 50% of the voters won't even have to pay the tax and whadayaknow? it passed.

Alright... everyone give a "1" vote in my profile....

 

[LunarRay]

Poor won't get full tax benefit
tax cut dilema

 

[Zebo]

Regardless of race, creed, or color - they are broke because they are losers, they have high crime because they are losers, their kids get a poor education because they are losers, they have single-parent familes because they are losers, and they want to steal everyone else's money because they are losers. Do you know these people?

What makes them into "losers" Vic? Seems the good ole USA has a disproportionate amount of losers relative to other industrialized nations. Why? Balme welfare? hehe in Sweden or some of the more progressive socialist leaning nations one can exist for a lifetime never having a job and they have no where near the problems.

If you only see them as "losers" losers they will remain.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Poor won't get full tax benefit
tax cut dilema

Saw that. Just more proff the tax burden as a percentage of thier income is migrating to the middle/lower class. Sad really some Johnston&Johnston hier only pays 15% on his millons in dividens while joe taxi driver works two jobs and pays 50%.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Fen=x you can do better than that, explain. I'm willing to change are you?

ok... well, first, union guys are usually considered skilled labor. except for the waiters/waitresses. thats why they're not paid minimum wage. the reason they want minimum wage hikes is simple. to illustrate: theres two ways to dig a ditch. 4 guys and shovels with minimum skills for as cheap as you can get them, or one union guy with some skill at using a backhoe. if the wage of the 4 guys with shovels is gov't mandated to go higher, the union guy with the backhoe looks comparatively more attractive. before the hike if the 4 guys with shovels get paid $5 each to dig the ditch and the backhoe guy gets paid $24, you'd go with the shovels. after the hike, say, to $6, then you don't really care which, and then if theres another hike, say, to $7, then you get the guy with the backhoe. the unions want the minimum wage set to $12/hr in the US. they're not doing it for the "brotherhood of labor" as they tell the public. no-sir. union management is looking out for only the people who pay union dues. heck, some of the first unions in the country were skilled artisan steel workers forming so they could lock out less skilled labor after an easier way to make steel was invented.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1
CADguy,
I read today that the bill contained some formula that causes some low earners not to able to take the EIC. An oversight I suppose but there was a calculation indicating such. Ok.. I'll look for a link

Yeah, I read that too Something about marriage penalty getting in the way until 2008 or something. I'm searching for it too, because that kinda blows for the people that would fall into that "quirk", But I'm sure they'll "fix" it with the next tax-cut

AHA - found it

"Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., gives this example: Imagine two single parents, each with one child and an income of $15,000. If single, each would be entitled to an EITC benefit of $2,750 - $5,500 in total. If they marry and combine their incomes, their EITC goes down to $1,200 - a $4,300 marriage penalty, 14 percent of their income." -philly.com

Yeah - looking at it again, it seems like one of those weird anomalies due to our complex tax code. I know that it doesn't eliviate the "pain" now, but I'm sure the next round of tax cuts by Bush (to get rid of those pesky sunsets) will probably address this too - before 2008

CkG

EDIT - ok, now reading your link (which sheds more light than mine) I see it was purposely cut out. But again, I have to ask how much income tax these people really do pay. PLUS they still get the other benifits of the tax cut Thats what you get if you play partisan politics though - someone always gets hurt - the american TAX PAYER

 

[TwilightZone77]

Originally posted by: Vic
Alright... everyone give a "1" vote in my profile....

No, sir. You just got a 10 from me. It's so nice to read things that actually make sense.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: HJD1
Poor won't get full tax benefit
tax cut dilema

Saw that. Just more proff the tax burden as a percentage of thier income is migrating to the middle/lower class. Sad really some Johnston&Johnston hier only pays 15% on his millons in dividens while joe taxi driver works two jobs and pays 50%.

I live on a fixed income, raise three grandkids, a dog and the odd ferral cat. I'd opt for no cut rather than further slap the poor in society in the face over and over. I think the rich, for the most part, have an attitude that s*cks.
Just like a post in another thread. I find this tax cut so mis directed that I almost want to run out to the curb and jump off.

:|

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: HJD1
Poor won't get full tax benefit
tax cut dilema

Saw that. Just more proff the tax burden as a percentage of thier income is migrating to the middle/lower class. Sad really some Johnston&Johnston hier only pays 15% on his millons in dividens while joe taxi driver works two jobs and pays 50%.

I live on a fixed income, raise three grandkids, a dog and the odd ferral cat. I'd opt for no cut rather than further slap the poor in society in the face over and over. I think the rich, for the most part, have an attitude that s*cks.
Just like a post in another thread. I find this tax cut so mis directed that I almost want to run out to the curb and jump off.

:|

that 5 inch fall from the top of the curb must really hurt

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
that 5 inch fall from the top of the curb must really hurt

You think

HJD1 is "AKA LUNAR RAY" you know

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: HJD1
Poor won't get full tax benefit
tax cut dilema

Saw that. Just more proff the tax burden as a percentage of thier income is migrating to the middle/lower class. Sad really some Johnston&Johnston hier only pays 15% on his millons in dividens while joe taxi driver works two jobs and pays 50%.

I live on a fixed income, raise three grandkids, a dog and the odd ferral cat. I'd opt for no cut rather than further slap the poor in society in the face over and over. I think the rich, for the most part, have an attitude that s*cks.
Just like a post in another thread. I find this tax cut so mis directed that I almost want to run out to the curb and jump off.

:|

that 5 inch fall from the top of the curb must really hurt

It's not the distance its the symbolism. No?
It is all relative... Now I have to use a car to drive 300 yards.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Fen=x you can do better than that, explain. I'm willing to change are you?

ok... well, first, union guys are usually considered skilled labor. except for the waiters/waitresses. thats why they're not paid minimum wage. the reason they want minimum wage hikes is simple. to illustrate: theres two ways to dig a ditch. 4 guys and shovels with minimum skills for as cheap as you can get them, or one union guy with some skill at using a backhoe. if the wage of the 4 guys with shovels is gov't mandated to go higher, the union guy with the backhoe looks comparatively more attractive. before the hike if the 4 guys with shovels get paid $5 each to dig the ditch and the backhoe guy gets paid $24, you'd go with the shovels. after the hike, say, to $6, then you don't really care which, and then if theres another hike, say, to $7, then you get the guy with the backhoe. the unions want the minimum wage set to $12/hr in the US. they're not doing it for the "brotherhood of labor" as they tell the public. no-sir. union management is looking out for only the people who pay union dues. heck, some of the first unions in the country were skilled artisan steel workers forming so they could lock out less skilled labor after an easier way to make steel was invented.

Bessimer Process

The unions put people with limited skills in the similar class as "mid-level professional", Dockwokers in Long Beach make 100K, Auto workers in Dertoit or flint make 60K etc etc I fail to see how this is bad? They are able to save, build families, and are usually responsible and active in their community. We pay them $5, which BTW is thier worth according to labor accross the border, and we have places like inner city detroit or englewood Ca. Hell holes with no commitment to society.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: ElFenix
that 5 inch fall from the top of the curb must really hurt

You think

HJD1 is "AKA LUNAR RAY" you know

CADiwompus,
Astute observation and predicated on the obvious absence of anything to the contrary
Where is Moonbeam... I need some real brain power here to outwit you all smart guys.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Bessimer Process

The unions put people with limited skills in the similar class as "mid-level professional", Dockwokers in Long Beach make 100K, Auto workers in Dertoit or flint make 60K etc etc I fail to see how this is bad? They are able to save, build families, and are usually responsible and active in their community. We pay them $5, which BTW is thier worth according to labor accross the border, and we have places like inner city detroit or englewood Ca. Hell holes with no commitment to society.

takes a lot more skill to operate a crane or a steel-stamping press than mopping the floor. you mop wrong you have to re-mop. you do something wrong with the crane and someone might be killed.

the unions here became fat and lazy in the 60s and 70s and its helped destroy the steel industry in this country