View Poll Results: Do The Rich Need Saving?

Voters
70. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 10.00%
  • No

    59 84.29%
  • Not Sure

    0 0%
  • Other/explain

    4 5.71%
Page 33 of 45 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 443

Thread: Do The Rich Need Saving?

  1. #321
    Educator U.S. Socialist.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    04-18-12 @ 04:55 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    913

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    I'm much more concerned with the reality of living standards than imagining what others may or may not have. We've been fine without Euro-socialism. Today, we live like a millionaire in 1950. We have the highest living standards in the world and the most power.

    Stats are just a butthole.
    I would post the stats that prove your wrong and we don't have the highest standard of living in the world, but you just said you would rather ignore stats that prove you wrong. Seriously what is the point in debating someone who will ignore facts?

  2. #322
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I don't know how I live with the evil either! I am married to a teacher! She drove a Datsun 210 station wagon for nine years! Talk about conspicuous wealth!!!!
    The last time I looked at a Dasun 210 I think I was in HS.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #323
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    I'm much more concerned with the reality of living standards than imagining what others may or may not have.
    Not really interested in your personal interpretation of reality, but thanks for sharing!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #324
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    The last time I looked at a Dasun 210 I think I was in HS.
    Ok, now that makes me feel old!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #325
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    =Boo Radley;1059693140]Barbarian, No matter the reason for the credit, it is tax payer dollors going to pay for something that is the companies responsibility. If you believe in the free market ideology, you can't also believe in government supplimenting business. And it makes no difference as to why
    .

    okay, then you must also believe the government should not be spending any money for clean energy, or any of the research for a cleaner fuel as well ... because after all .. we can't have government supplimenting business .... and corporate welfare .. is corporate welfare ... no matter who it goes to.

    Oh, and anyone who uses the American non-Thinker can never, ever complain about a source, as any source, no matter how wild, beats the American non-Thinker.
    yes and I even told you it was a conservative site ..... didn't I ... I guess being a treacher .. you can neither read nor comprehend ... I can see why our education system is failing. But I noticed that you didn't disprove anything they said ....


    Now, I did not single out oil companies, but spoke of corporate welfare on the whole. Your job would be to show that either such is just and a proper expensive of tax payer money, which to me means you're arguing that all we need to spend is a reason you like, or that we really don't have any corporate welfare of any significant sixe, which I think would be contrary to actual evidence.
    It's not my job to show anything, you make a blanket statement ... then ask someone to disprove it ... okay .. all teachers are over paid underworked .. and basically worthless .. and My proof is that we pay more per student then any other country, and we are ranked between 14th and 17th in the world in education

    Average taxpayers pick up an expensive tab for corporate welfare expenditures. Government spending for corporate welfare programs far exceeds government spending for social programs.
    1.Fact: Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs spending for low-income programs by more than three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion (source: Aid for Dependent Corporations, from the Corporate Welfare Project and How Much Do We Spend on Welfare?, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, FY 95 figures)
    Not sure where you get your figures from .. . but here are some new ones ... showing where we pay nearly 400 billion a year in welfare payments .. Welfare Spending Chart in United States 1996-2016 - Federal State Local


    2.Fact: Total federal spending on a safety net for the poor costs the average taxpayer about $400 a year, while spending on corporate welfare programs costs the same taxpayer about $1400 a year. (source: CBO figures)
    see above link

    Corporate welfare programs are protected at the expense of the poor and powerless. In the last Congress, spending for the needy absorbed the majority of spending cuts, while corporate welfare spending was barely touched.
    Again .. describe corporate welfare, because all the figures you are giving seem to be for tax breaks ... that is written into the tax codes, and cannot be considered welfare of any kind

    1.Fact: Over 90% of the budget cuts passed by the last Congress cut spending for the poor -- programs that ensure food for the needy, housing for the homeless, job training for the unemployed, community health care for the sick. (source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Bearing Most of the Burden, 1996).
    you are talking about 1996? Who signed that into law .... it must have been Clinton .... right ?


    2.Fact: Only 3.9% of total federal outlays go to programs that solely benefit poor people.
    Welfare programs for corporations do not play by the same rules as welfare for people. Welfare benefits for individuals and families are limited by strict eligibility requirements and time limits, while corporations get corporate welfare benefits regardless of wealth or accountability.
    Again I refer you to this site Welfare Spending Chart in United States 1996-2016 - Federal State Local and you just continually repreat your self .. . I've already shown where the supposed 8 or 9 billion paid to oil companies .. . turns out to be less then 1 billion ..... and I even agreed .. that one billion should be cut .. But you just ramble on and on .. using the same old figures ... hardly a good teaching quality when you have been shown those numbers are wrong


    2.Fact: Most social spending is in the form of discretionary spending, which is scrutinized in the annual budget negotiating process in Congress; most corporate welfare programs are in the form of tax expenditures, which go on and on since they are not subject to annual review by Congress.
    Which means they are part of the tax "laws" and once again .. is in no way corporate welfare, if you use that reasoning .. then we must add to individual welfare .. any "legal" deduction taken by individuals ... correct?


    In the wake of an earlier round of bank bailouts presided over by George H.W. Bush, I published a short piece in Newsweek entitled “Welfare Bankers” (sadly, the magazine’s digital archives do not extend to October 16-17, 1989). Protesting the moral double standard applied to bankers and to welfare mothers, I argued that the bankers whose institutions were bailed out at a cost of about $156 billion (what a deal compared to today’s bailout!) could perhaps be retrained as child care workers.
    has nothing to do with anything ... but for your information, I disagreed with the bail outs .. Then on the other hand .. if I recall correctly, most of that money if not all of it was repaid by the banks was it not ? So again . . you are just filling up spaces with nothing ... but being a teacher .. I fully understand your need to do so

    In the decade that followed this financial debacle, we could have gotten banking reform. Instead, we got welfare reform. Stricter work requirements and time limits were imposed. The welfare rolls declined sharply. Participation in the TANF program has fallen by half since 1996
    .

    We did get Banking reform as well .. remember the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act signed by Clinton ??

    Welfare reform was heralded as a great success because it got so many of our female “troubled assets” off the rolls. But in addition to some unanticipated side effects (which I’ll describe in a future post), it was premised on the assumption that single mothers would be able to find work if they just tried hard enough.
    Again not sure what this has to do with corporate welfare .. I'm sure you have some reason to coming to it over and over again . . something only a teacher would understand .. I guess ....but again understand ... that it was Clinton that signed that welfare reform into law



    However, the Bush budget proposal also increases some of the largest corporate welfare programs, such as federal aid to oil companies through the fossil energy research and development program and research subsidies to aerospace companies as well as increases for the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Foreign Agriculture Service, and the Conservation Reserve Program.

    The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever

    And that has probably emboldened Congress -- which, instead of investigating oil companies, just handed them (by various estimates) anywhere from $1.4 billion to $4 billion in tax breaks in the new energy bill.

    Just a suggestion, have you looked up any of those programs you just listed ..... or were you so impressed by the 1.4 billion dollar number .. .that you just assumed it was bad ... kinda know the anwer ....I suggest you look them up .. and read what you are against ......


    As I have said, most of what you are saying is we need to change our tax laws ... and I'm all for that .. not just closing these so called loopholes, but the entire system .... But when talking about corporate welfare, lets not be including "legal" tax deductions being taken by a company. that is not corporate welfare, any more then it's welfare for a person to itemize and take every legal deduction they can take. Both are the same.
    Last edited by The Barbarian; 07-30-11 at 11:02 AM.

  6. #326
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    The American non-Thinker is not a conservative site, it's an idiot site. Do make the proper distinction.

    And yes, being legal or not doesn't make somethin not corporate welfare. What the poor get for welfare is legal. Legal is not what makes something not welfare.

    But, if we can find good in something, do you believe we should let it be done? Is that now your criteria for government aid?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #327
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Just as the working class was not asked if they wanted to pick up the slack for the tax breaks given to the rich in the first place.
    They got their tax cuts and their programs - no federal income taxes and all sorts of goodies. They've been eating their cake. And yes, now they are going to start paying for it in higher costs of fuel, food, and other commodities.

  8. #328
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Not really interested in your personal interpretation of reality, but thanks for sharing!
    Like you have something else. At least mine is not bitter and detached.


    Quote Originally Posted by U.S. Socialist. View Post
    I would post the stats that prove your wrong and we don't have the highest standard of living in the world, but you just said you would rather ignore stats that prove you wrong. Seriously what is the point in debating someone who will ignore facts?
    Spare me the HDI. I know all about the child mortality debacle and subjective measurements. I've lived all over the world and seen it, you can leave the books at home and take a look yourself.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 08-01-11 at 09:07 AM.

  9. #329
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kali View Post
    Many folks around here seem so very concerned about the rich folks, their money and the taxes they have to pay.

    So I ask the folks here do we really need to be worried about rich folks having to pay too much tax? Are you gonna sleep less at night worrying about tax burdens of the rich?

    For the rich folks here at DP? Sorry if I offend you.
    Yes, taxing them too much caused them Maryland's millionaires to leave (so of course revenue fell, contrary to what their liberal economics informs them). I care about the rich because they do pay more than their fair share and are insulted for it. My heart is to bleed for need but when it comes to the rich I am to play the world smallest violin?

    You cannot ask someone for compassion while taking advantage of them and insulting them for their ability to bear it. I mean really what are you counting on? The rich don't need saving they need people to get the hell out of their way, they have work to do and will employ people to get the job done. Will their wage be any more than the work is worth? Why should it.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 08-01-11 at 10:02 AM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  10. #330
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Why should seniors have to suffer more while millionaires and billionaires continue to enjoy tax breaks higher then the median income for 90% of the country?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Page 33 of 45 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •