Obama and his new budget: Debt will surpass total US Economy

firstdown · 02-16-2011, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

I am a benevolent dictator. I would let you choose between more kids less benefits, less kids more benefits. I mean, it can't be worse than the current policy of more kids more benefits, less kids less benefits.

Think about it, you would benefit because the tax burden on you is less and there would be less useless little toddlers who you have to subsidize and compete for natural resources with. You'd be king of the mofo jungle! The planet could use your help folks.

So you have a problem with our current system that gives more benefits to mother on well fair who have more children?

saden1 · 02-16-2011, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

So you have a problem with our current system that gives more benefits to mother on well fair who have more children?

I don't believe in handing people money because they have more kids. That isn't to say the government shouldn't provide some level of help (i.e. SCHIP, daycare, school lunch, education grants etc) to low income families.

Conservatives think only the poor don't pay taxes or get perks which clearly isn't true. I mean, there isn't enough poor people in this country for 47% of the population to not pay taxes.

Poverty in America from the census: http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/11s0708.pdf

firstdown · 02-16-2011, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

I don't believe in handing people money because they have more kids. That isn't to say the government shouldn't provide some level of help (i.e. SCHIP, daycare, school lunch, education grants etc) to low income families.

Conservatives think only the poor don't pay taxes or get perks which clearly isn't true. I mean, there isn't enough poor people in this country for 47% of the population to not pay taxes.

Poverty in America from the census: http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/11s0708.pdf

Thats the problem. The group of people not paying any federal income taxes has grown past the poor into the lower middle income to middle income. The poor is clearly the ones receiving the perks without paying into the system.

Schneed10 · 02-16-2011, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

Thats the problem. The group of people not paying any federal income taxes has grown past the poor into the lower middle income to middle income. The poor is clearly the ones receiving the perks without paying into the system.

The reason the middle class are fitting into that 47% is not because they don't earn enough to be taxed, it's because they meet enough deductions and credits to not pay.

If you didn't give them the mortgage interest deduction credt, then the price of your house will go way down. If you didn't give them the child tax credit, more kids would just end up needing financial aid for college, because college savings are exactly what would get sacrificed.

If you want to change that 47% number you're talking about doing away with deductions, almost all of which need to be there, and if they're not there, there will be negative consequences for all of us.

saden1 · 02-16-2011, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The reason the middle class are fitting into that 47% is not because they don't earn enough to be taxed, it's because they meet enough deductions and credits to not pay.

If you didn't give them the mortgage interest deduction credt, then the price of your house will go way down. If you didn't give them the child tax credit, more kids would just end up needing financial aid for college, because college savings are exactly what would get sacrificed.

If you want to change that 47% number you're talking about doing away with deductions, almost all of which need to be there, and if they're not there, there will be negative consequences for all of us.

So you want those with no children or less children and those with no mortgages to subsidize these people?

SirClintonPortis · 02-16-2011, 04:14 PM

FYI to those who don't know.
Debts and deficits are not the same thing. Debts are a stock variable while deficits are a flow variable.

Schneed10 · 02-16-2011, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

So you want those with no children or less children and those with no mortgages to subsidize these people?

Yes.

There needs to be an incentive to buy homes or the housing market will collapse in this economy. And those making 70K and supporting 3 kids deserve a bit more help from the government than those making 70K with no kids.

firstdown · 02-16-2011, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

So you want those with no children or less children and those with no mortgages to subsidize these people?

Really I was thinking the same thing. How about if you cannot afford the child keep your pecker in your pants or your legs closed. I'm the first to say I take ever deduction I can but I still pay too much in taxes. Stop spending so much money and come up with a fair system for everyone. I don't mind palying more then someone making less as long as its fair and everyone pays into the system.

Hog1 · 02-16-2011, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

I am a benevolent dictator. I would let you choose between more kids less benefits, less kids more benefits. I mean, it can't be worse than the current policy of more kids more benefits, less kids less benefits.

Think about it, you would benefit because the tax burden on you is less and there would be less useless little toddlers who you have to subsidize and compete for natural resources with. You'd be king of the mofo jungle! The planet could use your help folks.

There could be hope for you yet!

Schneed10 · 02-16-2011, 08:27 PM

Why do anything to discourage population growth?? I don't understand that at all.

Hog1 · 02-16-2011, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Why do anything to discourage population growth?? I don't understand that at all.

The obvious budget implications. Societal dilemma's.......Oh yea, a Paved Planet is an unhappy planet...we have an unhappy planet

saden1 · 02-17-2011, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog1

The obvious budget implications. Societal dilemma's.......Oh yea, a Paved Planet is an unhappy planet...we have an unhappy planet

We might run out of food, oil, and asphalt before paving the planet...or we might kill eachother for them.

saden1 · 02-17-2011, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog1

There could be hope for you yet!

Is it like the Obama hope?

Hog1 · 02-17-2011, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

Is it like the Obama hope?

Oh...no no no no no no....I give you...way more credit than Lord O.

firstdown · 02-17-2011, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

Is it like the Obama hope?

The Obama Hope is fine its the Change part thats not working out so well.

02-16-2011, 04:14 PM	#51
SirClintonPortis Pro Bowl Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 6,052	Re: Obama and his new budget: Debt will surpass total US Economy FYI to those who don't know. Debts and deficits are not the same thing. Debts are a stock variable while deficits are a flow variable. __________________ Analysis using datasets (aka stats) is an attempt at reverse-engineering a player's "goodness". Virtuosity remembered, douchebaggery forgotten. The ideal character profile shoved down modern Western men and women's throats is Don Juan.

02-16-2011, 08:27 PM	#55
Schneed10 RG Glee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 33 Posts: 7,893	Re: Obama and his new budget: Debt will surpass total US Economy Why do anything to discourage population growth?? I don't understand that at all. __________________ Skins' Salary Cap Status \| CrazyCanuck's Cap Figures by Player \| Salary Cap 101

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Obama and his new budget: Debt will surpass total US Economy

Debating with the enemy