If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   "He says too many Americans lean on taxpayers, yet depends on a federal subsidy called the earned-income tax credit. He signed up his 3 kids to eat free meals at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mom's hip surgery twice"   (nytimes.com) divider line 318
    More: Stupid, medicare, Americans, American middle class, safety nets, extreme poverty, subsidies, expenses, meals  
•       •       •

11251 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2012 at 2:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



318 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-12 04:17:42 PM

thatboyoverthere: bgddy24601: King Something: [i.imgur.com image 500x375]
CAUTION: WIDE RIGHT TURNS

FTFY
I'm so glad I went to the gym today. I do not want to be like that.

/Over 350 pounds. Starting to lose it.
//Helps that my classes are up two flights of stairs and my friend's dorm is up three. So I wind up climbing stairs all day.


I am also 3 bills plus, right around 350. I was doing well at the gym until I hurt my foot and an infection got in. Having surgery next week to lose some foot. But as soon as the doc clears me I am back at the gym.

I'll be pulling for you, buddy. Keep me in the loop w/your progress. I can always use another inspirational story.
 
2012-02-12 04:17:50 PM

randomjsa: [i42.tinypic.com image 427x305]

But it's totally the fact that we're not taxing "the rich" enough, that's the reason we're so deeply in debt. Right?


You do know that is just a stock photo with a new label slapped on top, right? What am I saying, of course you do.
 
2012-02-12 04:19:57 PM

elchip: I'm all for single payer, but how would government-administered INSURANCE change the production habits of drug companies?


I'm just saying, the private medical industry can't do anything right. Why do we trust health care, any health care, to a profit margin instead of as a national good?
 
2012-02-12 04:22:29 PM
Good lord there's some weak trolling in this thread.
 
2012-02-12 04:22:49 PM

Weaver95: theorellior: randomjsa: But it's totally the fact that we're not taxing "the rich" enough, that's the reason we're so deeply in debt. Right?

That's a really funny graph. Where'd you get it?

he made it up.


What he did was stumble upon this graph, which is discredited here, at American Thinker, change the text from "outlays" to "federal spending," and upload it to tinypic.
 
2012-02-12 04:27:09 PM
The snark from the left is amusing.

When a man works, and his employer gives him $100, HE THEN HAS TO GIVE about $30 of it to the government. If the government decides that dude is on hard times and only decides to take $20, people treat that as a $10 handout when in fact, he's just getting to keep more of what he made. Thats what the EITC is.

Heaven forbid people be forced to pay into something their whole life and then draw the benefit off it. The Government takes from us our whole lives in the name of our own good, for our health, retirement and because we cannot possibly take care of ourselves. After paying 35% of our money to the feds every check, we have nothing left to invest for ourselves and HAVE to get on the benefit programs that we paid into.

For instance, the 13% of our check taken from us for social security would better serve people if it was in an underground coffee can account yet people bow before the government as though they are so benevolent as to let us have back what they took from us for 50 years. The liberals then snark about those old people "on the dole" who PAID INTO something their whole life.

The issue should be with people who pay nothing and receive more than those who pay 25-35%
 
2012-02-12 04:29:38 PM

Sabyen91: yellowcat: elchip: SunsetLament: CONSERVATIVE: I don't believe the government should take money from one person and give it to another.

LIBERAL: I confiscate your $5 on behalf of the government. I now implement a policy where the government gives $2 to every person.

CONSERVATIVE: Give me my $2. I want my whole $5, but at least you only screwed me out of $3.

LIBERAL: Hypocrite! How dare you criticize the government when you take from it!!?!?

The average Medicare beneficiary receives two to three times what he put into the system.

The average private medical insurance benifiicary receives much more in benefits than he (or his employer or whoever paid for the insurance) paid in. Your point?

Scratches head.

Insano: Wrong. Medicare can run at a net loss because it is supported by tax dollars and for good reason: providing adequate health care and for-profit models can be at odds. As if you would provide any, I'll ask for a citation.
Private companies can't do that.


Sorry, i didn't say that right. If you are using the insurance for more than an occasional check up -- surgery, something like that, you get more than you put in -- and I bet most of us get more out than we personally pay in. I pay something like $58 per month for my policy -- a check up once a year (with labs), two visits to the Dentist, eye checkup, and a few prescriptions -- I come out on top. And I don't have to worry about tripping down the stairs and losing everything because of unexpected medical bills.

Insurance companies -- if their models worked the way we all think they do (more people paying in than taking out) then why do they continually change the playing field? Policies change on a continual basis -- what is covered, how much they pay physicians for example.

And no, I don't have any studies to back any of this up -- just personal experience.

/need to go back to lurking
 
2012-02-12 04:32:15 PM

o5iiawah: The issue should be with people who pay nothing and receive more than those who pay 25-35%


damn straight! I agree with you - lets END those gotdamn corporate tax breaks once and for all!

f*cking commie leeches is what they is....i'm glad you stand againt 'em!
 
2012-02-12 04:34:05 PM

BSABSVR: She counts herself among them. She lives on $1,220 a month in Social Security benefits and relied on Medicare to pay for an operation in November.

She believes that she is taking more from the government than she paid in taxes. She worries about the consequences for her grandchildren. She said she would like politicians to propose solutions.

"We're reasonable people," she said. "We're not going to say, 'Give it to me and let my grandchildren suffer.' I think they underestimate seniors when they think that way."

But she cannot imagine asking people to pay higher taxes. And as she considered making do with less, she started to cry.

This is the problem in a nutshell. "Sure there's a problem, but someone (not me!) needs to come up with a solution and that solution can't negatively impact anyone as far as benefits offered or taxes raised".

Most of the people in the article (with the exception of the Falks) seem to be waiting for some sort of magic that will increase benefits and lower taxes. And I don;t really blame them to be honest. They've swallowed years and years of propaganda about how there's plenty of savings that can be realized in some way that will never have a negative effect on them as well as the erroneous idea that YOU get benefits that you have paid for, THEY are on welfare.

It's no wonder there's such a disconnect.


Honestly...I think the problem is just that they aren't earning enough.

I mean, I've got four siblings. I remember when I was little, that wasn't a problem. One person--just one--could earn enough for all six people, and the other could stay home. We had vacations, family time...

The people FTFA are proud. They want to be able to survive on their own, but they can't, and feel guilty as hell about it. But can they afford to give something back to feel equal again? No. They don't have enough money.

So they're trapped in a cycle of guilt and poverty, and know they are, but they can't psychologically afford to know they are. They claim they need nothing because that makes it easier to bear the guilt and shame.

I really, really feel sorry for them, honestly. Our culture prizes being independent and earning your own way as marks of adulthood, but they can't do it, and it's killing them emotionally. That's really farked up.
 
2012-02-12 04:34:42 PM

o5iiawah: For instance, the 13% of our check taken from us for social security would better serve people if it was in an underground coffee can account


That's effectively how people (maybe you?) think Social Security works.
 
2012-02-12 04:35:10 PM

yellowcat: Sabyen91: yellowcat: elchip: SunsetLament: CONSERVATIVE: I don't believe the government should take money from one person and give it to another.

LIBERAL: I confiscate your $5 on behalf of the government. I now implement a policy where the government gives $2 to every person.

CONSERVATIVE: Give me my $2. I want my whole $5, but at least you only screwed me out of $3.

LIBERAL: Hypocrite! How dare you criticize the government when you take from it!!?!?

The average Medicare beneficiary receives two to three times what he put into the system.

The average private medical insurance benifiicary receives much more in benefits than he (or his employer or whoever paid for the insurance) paid in. Your point?

Scratches head.

Insano: Wrong. Medicare can run at a net loss because it is supported by tax dollars and for good reason: providing adequate health care and for-profit models can be at odds. As if you would provide any, I'll ask for a citation.
Private companies can't do that.


Sorry, i didn't say that right. If you are using the insurance for more than an occasional check up -- surgery, something like that, you get more than you put in -- and I bet most of us get more out than we personally pay in. I pay something like $58 per month for my policy -- a check up once a year (with labs), two visits to the Dentist, eye checkup, and a few prescriptions -- I come out on top. And I don't have to worry about tripping down the stairs and losing everything because of unexpected medical bills.

Insurance companies -- if their models worked the way we all think they do (more people paying in than taking out) then why do they continually change the playing field? Policies change on a continual basis -- what is covered, how much they pay physicians for example.

And no, I don't have any studies to back any of this up -- just personal experience.

/need to go back to lurking


Most peoples' policies are WAY more than $58/month. Are you a very healthy 25-year old with a mediocre plan, or is your employer putting up the rest?
 
2012-02-12 04:36:33 PM
And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

winterwhile?
 
2012-02-12 04:37:54 PM

spamdog: And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

winterwhile?


dem-o-rats make me

pay these taxes but......... what am

i getting from it????????????
 
2012-02-12 04:38:31 PM

spamdog: And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

winterwhile?


I think a LOT of our local GOP shills are on some form of government assistance.
 
2012-02-12 04:40:21 PM

So the man that makes 39K a year (that net or gross?) and finds it isn't enough wants to pay less in taxes, but takes as much back from the Gov as he can?


History's greatest Beggar!
 
2012-02-12 04:42:03 PM

Lionel Mandrake: And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.


How much did it cost, how much did his mother, father, other family members pay into the system that we now want to berate him for taking advantage of?

"Deferred income", amirite?
 
2012-02-12 04:42:34 PM
I can't figure out how my wife and I managed to raise three kids, buy a home, put away for a retirement with out the governments "help". These programs didn't exist when we were younger, yeah I'm old.
There were no safety nets, school food programs, special tax deductions. If people were in trouble, the church or family would come to their aid. We managed to live within our means, if we couldn't afford it we didn't buy it. I'll grant you that we didn't have all the bling that you just have to have, smart phones, computers, cable TV, and on and on.
 
2012-02-12 04:44:03 PM

s2s2s2: So the man that makes 39K a year (that net or gross?) and finds it isn't enough wants to pay less in taxes, but takes as much back from the Gov as he can?


History's greatest Beggar!


um...corporations do this sort of thing all the time. they pay little (if anything) in taxes, yet demand more services and favorable regulations from government.
 
2012-02-12 04:44:19 PM

Weaver95: I think a LOT of our local GOP shills are on some form of government assistance.


Is being on the RNC payroll considered "government assistance"?
 
2012-02-12 04:44:55 PM

Weaver95: Our nation is on some form of government assistance.


Communist Government Assistance, no less.
 
2012-02-12 04:45:06 PM

D-Liver: Weaver95: theorellior: randomjsa: But it's totally the fact that we're not taxing "the rich" enough, that's the reason we're so deeply in debt. Right?

That's a really funny graph. Where'd you get it?

he made it up.

What he did was stumble upon this graph, which is discredited here, at American Thinker, change the text from "outlays" to "federal spending," and upload it to tinypic.


You know, actually after doing some other research I think the graph originally comes from Opinion: What Does Government Do? from AOLNews. It has written below it "Source: Office of Management and Budget, FY 2012 Budget" which doesn't really make sense. because it deals entirely in numbers from before 2010. I tried checking the Office of Management and Budget for anything that resembled that graph or those numbers, but I came up empty.
 
2012-02-12 04:45:34 PM
You know we grew up taught to believe that everyone's equal. That you are no better than anyone else - Of course that's a lie. Some are better than others. - Quote from Stargate Universe

Thought that was fitting. Truth is, some people really are just plain stupid. I reiterate the story of the one hardcore conservative I knew personally who railed against welfare queens, black people on welfare, blah blah blah, and yet once confided that he was denied welfare even though both him and his wife worked full time jobs. Again, fact of the matter is, some people really just do not have the mental capacity and capabilities....well they are just freaking dumb. I don't consider myself very intelligent, that is until I read articles such as this and realize just how many in our society have what I consider the intelligence of children. No wait, that is an insult to children. Guess there is no other way to put it; they are the morons of our society.

But by all means, let us do let these morons vote. Because we all know they will make wise informed decisions right? They will never elect complete morons right? There is a reason you get people like Michelle Bachman, Santorum, and Sarah Palin elected, because there are too many in the electorate that just do not have the intelligence to be given such a right. We don't let 6 year olds vote, so why do we let people with the equivalent mental facilities do it? Elitist? You betcha

Founding Fathers had an idea, lets update it to this century. You have to prove knowledge to pass a driving exam, lets make people prove knowledge and intelligence to vote. And if that means I lose my right to vote because I am not smart enough to understand complex issues, then I am much better off knowing that the person who is casting that ballot knows that lowering revenue whilst raising spending sometimes can causes a deficit. Who'd thunk that.
 
2012-02-12 04:45:43 PM

cig-mkr: I can't figure out how my wife and I managed to raise three kids, buy a home, put away for a retirement with out the governments "help". These programs didn't exist when we were younger, yeah I'm old.
There were no safety nets, school food programs, special tax deductions. If people were in trouble, the church or family would come to their aid. We managed to live within our means, if we couldn't afford it we didn't buy it. I'll grant you that we didn't have all the bling that you just have to have, smart phones, computers, cable TV, and on and on.


back then, you also had rules that said wall street wasn't permitted to rape, loot and pillage at will. we removed those rules and well....here's what's left after all the raping, looting and pillaging.
 
2012-02-12 04:47:09 PM

Weaver95: um...corporations do this sort of thing all the time. they pay little (if anything) in taxes, yet demand more services and favorable regulations from government.


GE does it, so this guy is the devil, amirite? I'm sure they are taxed comparably.
 
2012-02-12 04:47:36 PM

s2s2s2: Communist Government Assistance, no less.


that's just wall street. technically its a form of socialism tho, not communism. Corporatism, I believe its called. Basically its the same as regular socialism except that corporations get all the benefits and regular people get screwed.
 
2012-02-12 04:47:38 PM

bgddy24601: thatboyoverthere: bgddy24601: King Something: [i.imgur.com image 500x375]
CAUTION: WIDE RIGHT TURNS

FTFY
I'm so glad I went to the gym today. I do not want to be like that.

/Over 350 pounds. Starting to lose it.
//Helps that my classes are up two flights of stairs and my friend's dorm is up three. So I wind up climbing stairs all day.

I am also 3 bills plus, right around 350. I was doing well at the gym until I hurt my foot and an infection got in. Having surgery next week to lose some foot. But as soon as the doc clears me I am back at the gym.

I'll be pulling for you, buddy. Keep me in the loop w/your progress. I can always use another inspirational story.


Had a knee injury and on top of that quit smoking so I surpassed the 275 lb mark. Hitting the treadmill daily, progress is slow, this week actually gained weight but not giving up. Hang in there never give up and just keep going. (smoked for 40 years) Knees are filled with arthritis and loss of ACL and meniscus but if I can lose the weight it will help. Still crave the cigs but already can breath better and not coughing all the time. If I can beat that I can lose the weight. Good luck to you
 
2012-02-12 04:49:17 PM

s2s2s2: Weaver95: um...corporations do this sort of thing all the time. they pay little (if anything) in taxes, yet demand more services and favorable regulations from government.

GE does it, so this guy is the devil, amirite? I'm sure they are taxed comparably.


actually, GE and their executive board pay MUCH less in taxes than regular working people do. Yet they get more from the government despite the fact that they pay less in taxes.

so if we are to follow the GOP logic in this thread, then we should punish the 1% more harshly for being 'leeches'.
 
2012-02-12 04:50:47 PM

lwpengy: Had a knee injury and on top of that quit smoking so I surpassed the 275 lb mark.


so you used to be skinny but then you took an arrow to the knee...?
 
2012-02-12 04:51:41 PM

Weaver95: that's just wall street.


Um, no.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-02-12 04:53:30 PM

s2s2s2: Weaver95: that's just wall street.

Um, no.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x413]


So who has the rest of it, you know, the majority of it? Oh right, US citizens. Funny how that isn't worth talking about.
 
2012-02-12 04:54:03 PM

Weaver95: so if we are to follow the GOP logic in this thread, then we should punish the 1% more harshly for being 'leeches'.


If only we could encourage the GOP to follow that logic, we'd be getting somewhere. And it's not punishment, it's doing what is right.

Suppose all the farmers decided "We grow it, so we should be able to keep as much of it as we can!"?
 
2012-02-12 04:55:12 PM

GAT_00: So who has the rest of it, you know, the majority of it? Oh right, US citizens. Funny how that isn't worth talking about.


It is. But again, the guy in the headline, article isn't being inconsistent.
 
2012-02-12 04:55:20 PM

Weaver95: cig-mkr: I can't figure out how my wife and I managed to raise three kids, buy a home, put away for a retirement with out the governments "help". These programs didn't exist when we were younger, yeah I'm old.
There were no safety nets, school food programs, special tax deductions. If people were in trouble, the church or family would come to their aid. We managed to live within our means, if we couldn't afford it we didn't buy it. I'll grant you that we didn't have all the bling that you just have to have, smart phones, computers, cable TV, and on and on.

back then, you also had rules that said wall street wasn't permitted to rape, loot and pillage at will. we removed those rules and well....here's what's left after all the raping, looting and pillaging.


And onions for their belts.
 
2012-02-12 04:58:00 PM

Weaver95: lwpengy: Had a knee injury and on top of that quit smoking so I surpassed the 275 lb mark.

so you used to be skinny but then you took an arrow to the knee...?


Yes on my way to the gym, had to be there in 26 minutes I was late
 
2012-02-12 05:00:20 PM
This article illustrates the hypocrisy of the average American, but also spells out in clear English the hypocrisy of lower-class Republican-leaning older voters.
 
2012-02-12 05:02:07 PM
there's absolutely nothing hypocritical about opposing certain programs and then using them. now if they would refund all the money he paid into those programs, and he still insisted on using them, then that would be somewhat hypocritical, but not entirely. it's still completely possible to believe that it's more efficient, moral, just, legal, or any other reason to NOT have such programs.

i am not completely decided about whether or not such programs are moral, efficient, legal, just, etc., but it is indeed the acme of foolishness to take someone's money for a social program and then not allow them to participate in it to the fullest extent. after all, that's just being a good citizen.
 
2012-02-12 05:02:14 PM
Oh, and by the way, I bet the phrase "those damned Mexicans" went through the heads of each and every person who commented in the article AT LEAST three or four times during the course of their respective interviews.
 
2012-02-12 05:08:11 PM

ssa5: You know we grew up taught to believe that everyone's equal. That you are no better than anyone else - Of course that's a lie. Some are better than others. - Quote from Stargate Universe

Thought that was fitting. Truth is, some people really are just plain stupid. I reiterate the story of the one hardcore conservative I knew personally who railed against welfare queens, black people on welfare, blah blah blah, and yet once confided that he was denied welfare even though both him and his wife worked full time jobs. Again, fact of the matter is, some people really just do not have the mental capacity and capabilities....well they are just freaking dumb. I don't consider myself very intelligent, that is until I read articles such as this and realize just how many in our society have what I consider the intelligence of children. No wait, that is an insult to children. Guess there is no other way to put it; they are the morons of our society.

But by all means, let us do let these morons vote. Because we all know they will make wise informed decisions right? They will never elect complete morons right? There is a reason you get people like Michelle Bachman, Santorum, and Sarah Palin elected, because there are too many in the electorate that just do not have the intelligence to be given such a right. We don't let 6 year olds vote, so why do we let people with the equivalent mental facilities do it? Elitist? You betcha

Founding Fathers had an idea, lets update it to this century. You have to prove knowledge to pass a driving exam, lets make people prove knowledge and intelligence to vote. And if that means I lose my right to vote because I am not smart enough to understand complex issues, then I am much better off knowing that the person who is casting that ballot knows that lowering revenue whilst raising spending sometimes can causes a deficit. Who'd thunk that.


It's amazing how tempting oligarchy is, even though it collapsed under it's own weight.
 
2012-02-12 05:10:34 PM

proteus_b: there's absolutely nothing hypocritical about opposing certain programs and then using them.


Understand, these people are NOT "incapable" of living in this society without federal assistance, they are simply not WILLING to live in this society without federal assistance. Instead of cutting their expenditures, moving, looking for a new line of work, or anything that would be temporarily uncomfortable but, in the long term, probably financially beneficial, they'd rather suckle off the government teat and simultaneously scream about how the milk is sour and too expensive.

proteus_b: but it is indeed the acme of foolishness to take someone's money for a social program and then not allow them to participate in it to the fullest extent


Yes, because it's apparent that these people have contributed oh sooo much of their own money into the social programs of which they simultaneously use and fight to stop.

See which states are in the red and in the black regarding their federal share of income. See which states have the higher percentages of those receiving federal benefits. Oddly enough, those who vehemently oppose federal benefits are less upset with them when white people are receiving said benefits.
 
2012-02-12 05:14:24 PM

proteus_b: there's absolutely nothing hypocritical about opposing certain programs and then using them. now if they would refund all the money he paid into those programs, and he still insisted on using them, then that would be somewhat hypocritical, but not entirely. it's still completely possible to believe that it's more efficient, moral, just, legal, or any other reason to NOT have such programs.

i am not completely decided about whether or not such programs are moral, efficient, legal, just, etc., but it is indeed the acme of foolishness to take someone's money for a social program and then not allow them to participate in it to the fullest extent. after all, that's just being a good citizen.


Using your logic I should be given the access codes to launch America's nuclear weapons, after all my money is being taken for them how can the government not allow me to participate in it.
 
2012-02-12 05:14:57 PM

SunsetLament: CONSERVATIVE: I don't believe the government should take money from one person and give it to another.

LIBERAL: I confiscate your $5 on behalf of the government. I now implement a policy where the government gives $2 to every person.

CONSERVATIVE: Give me my $2. I want my whole $5, but at least you only screwed me out of $3.

LIBERAL: Hypocrite! How dare you criticize the government when you take from it!!?!?


Congratulations. I give an award out once a week. It may only be the first day of this week, but...

YOU WIN! Dumbest post of the week award!
 
2012-02-12 05:15:03 PM
SunsetLament 2012-02-12 03:00:37 PM


the definition of "moral turpitude": Failing to lie
 
2012-02-12 05:16:16 PM

crazyeddie:
If you had stayed in school, you would understand that EITC tables plateau for certain combinations of income and dependent levels, such that a person can earn as much or more money in total (EITC + Wages) than someone who has more wages in a given tax year. You are correct, though, that EITC can never exceed your taxable wages. So what's your point?

I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse, but obviously in order to reach their target recipients effectively, the government will use tax incentives and subsidies that are not directly label as such. Not every government subsidy is labeled clearly for all to see, but mathematically it's the same effect.

Tax credits for farmed land with fewer than xx employees, for example, is a pretty transparent farm subsidy which avoids tying the benefit to the goods produced (which might therefore subsidize the big multinational industrial conglomerate, who needs no subsidy). Again, though, the net effect for the small farmer is the same: He or she is subsidized by the taxpayer.

In order to reach the intended audience effectively and avoid the unintended consequences of other market forces, the government sometimes uses tax incentives (credits) to achieve subsidies. You seem to be confusing the method of implementation with the intended purpose.


I'll admit I don't prepare my own taxes and that I don't qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, so I was not as knowledgeable about it as I should have been before I opened my mouth. I assumed it was a standard deduction, so I didn't understand, can I now be outraged about tea bag welfare queens?
 
2012-02-12 05:16:45 PM
Also, I laugh at the fact that they're all so willing to give, give, give to the retired crowd so much, yet mildly whine about "our children" (which, incidentally, was never really an issue until 2009) being overburdened with debt.

Is it because these people are aware that there's no way the current Republican party will exist in 30 or 40 years? Sure, the name will be there, but the attitude WILL have to change.
 
2012-02-12 05:19:15 PM

Warlordtrooper: Using your logic I should be given the access codes to launch America's nuclear weapons, after all my money is being taken for them how can the government not allow me to participate in it.


that may be so, but at least i have used logic, and not merely started spewing out whatever strange things i wrote down on my last acid trip.

puffy999: See which states are in the red and in the black regarding their federal share of income. See which states have the higher percentages of those receiving federal benefits. Oddly enough, those who vehemently oppose federal benefits are less upset with them when white people are receiving said benefits.


what the hell do i care? is this a state popularity contest? yes, there are scum-sucking leeches in every state of the union, thank you doctor romero.

yes many people who contributed more than they might get back from social programs may happen to oppose them. they still may want to get their remarkably dim return on investment back. good day.
 
2012-02-12 05:20:58 PM

proteus_b: there's absolutely nothing hypocritical about opposing certain programs and then using them. now if they would refund all the money he paid into those programs, and he still insisted on using them, then that would be somewhat hypocritical, but not entirely. it's still completely possible to believe that it's more efficient, moral, just, legal, or any other reason to NOT have such programs.

i am not completely decided about whether or not such programs are moral, efficient, legal, just, etc., but it is indeed the acme of foolishness to take someone's money for a social program and then not allow them to participate in it to the fullest extent. after all, that's just being a good citizen.


So there's nothing hypocritical about a business owner who admits to not paying any federal income tax, takes the EITC and who's kids are getting federally provided free lunches, but then says '"I don't demand that the government does this for me," he said. "I don't feel like I need the government."'?

As someone who is part of the 51% who do pay income taxes, I find what he said to be incredibly hypocritical. If he didn't want government help, he can turn it down, but he doesn't.
 
2012-02-12 05:26:44 PM
People take what the are entitled too. The programs are all funded based on the number of people who live within certain income brackets. it's not as if the money would be saved if he didn't use the programs, or it would pay down the debt...every penny would be spent somewhere else.

I know of many libertarians who go out of their way to find every penny they can squeeze out of government just because they feel like it is money that never should have been taken in the first place.

You can be a sucker and not take the money while everyone else does or you can take what you can get and get ahead. I don't see hypocrisy either way because it is 2 separate situations, the first being how much will be taxed and what programs will we have, the second is being a person in the system we have and making use of it even if you don't think it is the right system.

I liken it to going out to a restaurant with family or friends. You and your friends are deciding on a place to go out to eat. You argue that you are all nearly broke and should go out to get pizza your friends all decide they want to go to a new expensive restaurant. So you have to pay your share and naturally your eat your share as well. Obviously the difference is you could choose not to eat out with your friends at all, you can't really choose to not be taxed and live under our laws though.
 
2012-02-12 05:28:44 PM
Tea Party

Surprise, surprise.

/keep government out of my medicare!
 
2012-02-12 05:30:16 PM

dustman81: proteus_b: there's absolutely nothing hypocritical about opposing certain programs and then using them. now if they would refund all the money he paid into those programs, and he still insisted on using them, then that would be somewhat hypocritical, but not entirely. it's still completely possible to believe that it's more efficient, moral, just, legal, or any other reason to NOT have such programs.

i am not completely decided about whether or not such programs are moral, efficient, legal, just, etc., but it is indeed the acme of foolishness to take someone's money for a social program and then not allow them to participate in it to the fullest extent. after all, that's just being a good citizen.

So there's nothing hypocritical about a business owner who admits to not paying any federal income tax, takes the EITC and who's kids are getting federally provided free lunches, but then says '"I don't demand that the government does this for me," he said. "I don't feel like I need the government."'?

As someone who is part of the 51% who do pay income taxes, I find what he said to be incredibly hypocritical. If he didn't want government help, he can turn it down, but he doesn't.


No not hypocritical at all. if he is getting programs that he doesn't need then the problem is with the programs in the first place and you can bet that there are a lot of other people who are taking them and don't need them but they will simply say that they do need them in order to keep the government tit nearby.

The correct response is to scale back the government programs so that he isn't eligible for those things anymore. He would only be a hypocrite if he cried and complained after the requirements for eligibility were tightened and he was no longer eligible.
 
2012-02-12 05:30:38 PM
PsiChick 2012-02-12 04:34:05 PM


Honestly...I think the problem is just that they aren't earning enough.

I mean, I've got four siblings. I remember when I was little, that wasn't a problem. One person--just one--could earn enough for all six people, and the other could stay home. We had vacations, family time...

The people FTFA are proud. They want to be able to survive on their own, but they can't, and feel guilty as hell about it. But can they afford to give something back to feel equal again? No. They don't have enough money.

So they're trapped in a cycle of guilt and poverty, and know they are, but they can't psychologically afford to know they are. They claim they need nothing because that makes it easier to bear the guilt and shame.

I really, really feel sorry for them, honestly. Our culture prizes being independent and earning your own way as marks of adulthood, but they can't do it, and it's killing them emotionally. That's really farked up.



Your empathy and compassion makes kitty very happy.
 
Displayed 50 of 318 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report