Elizabeth Warren and crew fight to get more people on welfare to the polls
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Though once there were "published" tax rates of 70-91%, very few ever paid taxes at those rates. Back then, there was something called "leveraged non-recourse tax shelters" that wealthy people used to eliminate as much as two-thirds of their tax burden. In addition, most very wealthy individuals kept a large percentage of their wealth offshore (e.g. Switzerland) where it was hidden from the IRS. A study by the IRS in 2003 estimated that the richest people in the country paid about 32% of their income in federal taxes during those high tax rate periods (1950s-1960s). In the 1960s, Kennedy lowered tax rates; then Reagan further lowered the rates and also eliminated non-recourse loan tax shelters. In recent years, the tax benefits of offshore banking have been all but been eliminated.
Not to mention the fact that the rates started going up right around the time that every other country in the world just finished having their manufacturing sector destroyed....
Rates have been drifting lower and lower over the last 30 years in order to compensate for the fact that we simply cant compete with emerging countries on the world market in terms of manufacturing anymore.
Liberals try to make the assinine argument that because rates went up under clinton and many jobs were created in the 90's higher rates some how contributed to the once in a century tech boom of the 90's.
The fact of the matter is that there is to much competition out there today for a welfare state to survive, there are too many countries willing to pay next to nothing for the welfare state to survive, so long as there is 10 countries who arent going to pay shit for the unproductive to every 1 country willing to pay for the unproductive, the standard of living of the middle class is going to go down the toilet, until we no longer recognize america.
When Obama tries to increase the welfare/entitlement/big government state, there is no way to reconcile the 2, that is a direct assault on the way of the life of the middle class people who actually work hard and produce something, we can no longer be lazy, and get away with it, and increase both sides standard of living at the same time.
Anyway, the recent surge in social safety net spending is not because there was a sudden degradation of character, but because of the recession. So there's little reason to believe those receiving it, who as Tsing pointed out include many worthwhile people (particularly now), will be voting merely to keep getting it.
This may surprise you since im a "ruthless blood sucking conservative" but i actually have no problem with welfare for the "GENUINELY NEEDY"
I do believe in giving help to those in need, infact i spend alot of time doing charity work. Here is the difference in our opinion. No able bodied person should be allowed to accept food stamps or welfare beyond a certain time period in my opinion, 3 months and thats it.
If someone is genuinely handicapped i have no problem paying for them, unfortunately we have turned it into a system of abuse whereby people simply think they should be able to quit work and get money.
On top of that the system doesnt work at all the way it was supposed to. I will give you a couple example from employment insurance though they are both examples from Canada im sure they both apply.
My sister is a hair dresser and a couple years ago she broke her ankle skiing and she had to have two plates put into her ankle, and couldnt walk for 4 months. So she had been paying into employment insurance through the government her whole life and she thought it would be no problem, by the time she had finished working her way through all the red tape with the government she ended up recieving 1 cheque for 450 bucks a week before she was able to go back to work(which was supposed to compensate about 15k of lost work), meanwhile she pays 150 dollars a month, every single month actually thinking that this is an insurance program that will take care of her in her time of need.
Another example, once again this is a canadian one, i know a guy who is a carpenter who builds decks and fences and does all kinds of outside carpentry, every single year once it snows, he applies for employment insurance and he gets paid by the government out all through the winter while he works cash jobs so he can hold onto the cash money from the government.
The other day he came up to me and said "I will never vote for Harper again, he wants to limit employment insurance so i cant get it in the winter, i pay my taxes so i deserve this"
I asked him "If every single person was to pay 3000 dollars of taxes in the summer then take out 15k every winter how would that system survive?"
He didnt seem to understand the point, all he said was that he paid for it......
The fact of the matter is the days of these programs legitimatelely helping the people they were designed to help are long gone, and for the most part the only people left are the ones willing to abuse the system, the people who are willing to abuse the system always figure out a way, and the people who legitamately need it stays the same. Why is it that the people who need disability has gone up in multiples? are we really to believe that all of a sudden we are producing an exponentially higher number of disabled people?
Do these people need welfare? This is Alexandra Pelosi (Nancy's daughter) making the video, not Grover Norquist......
(btw she is spot on when she says there is no difference between these people and the various businesses that leach off the government......)
The overall problem is that we have way to many people who are involved in a reciprocating relationship with either political party, which is funded by tax payers dollars.....
If you ask me, no one who recieves government money directly, or indirectly should be allowed to vote, or donate, as it should be seenas a conflict of interest. Straight up the only people who should be allowed to vote are those who paid money into the system last year via taxes.
Straigt up, the businesses who recieved subsidies should not be allowed to vote, or donate, but neither should the people who recieve entitlements...... Until we change the system where people can vote someone elses money into their own pocket nothing is going to change.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0QlOWd2Afok" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
(btw she is spot on when she says there is no difference between these people and the various businesses that leach off the government......)
The overall problem is that we have way to many people who are involved in a reciprocating relationship with either political party, which is funded by tax payers dollars.....
If you ask me, no one who recieves government money directly, or indirectly should be allowed to vote, or donate, as it should be seenas a conflict of interest. Straight up the only people who should be allowed to vote are those who paid money into the system last year via taxes.
Straigt up, the businesses who recieved subsidies should not be allowed to vote, or donate, but neither should the people who recieve entitlements...... Until we change the system where people can vote someone elses money into their own pocket nothing is going to change.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0QlOWd2Afok" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>