Tax hikes - Yay or Nay?

[merithyn]

Specifically no entitlements were "done away with".  Speficially the entitlement programs that have been means tested is too long for me to bother listing for you since you still seem to fail to get the point anyway.

I'm sorry. I'm trying to, but you're not being very helpful.

You said:

Universal entitlement programs make no sense.  We abandoned them more than 20 years ago.

There is one caveat to that and that is programs which require universal participation to work.  So for example single payor medical coverage and no fault insurance.

in response to my post:

There's such a thing as balance. Having a government that helps The Population is far better than one that helps The Poor. When one focuses overly much on The Poor, The Population sees it as, "They took my money so that one deadbeat mother with 46 kids I saw that one time at the store buying cigarettes doesn't have to work!" When it's billed as, "This is for everyone, and everyone will benefit" you're more likely to get people to buy into it, which means you're more likely to get legislators to vote for it.

You're right. I didn't get your point, which is why I kept asking clarifying questions. Since you seem to not want to answer them, I'll put it down to "not worth worrying about" and move on.

[CountDeMoney]

Raise 'em to the roof.

Yea, the forty seven percenters need their hand outs.

It'd be a lot easier for you to post faster if you skipped your little code words and just typed "blacks".

[11B4V]

Raise 'em to the roof.

Yea, the forty seven percenters need their hand outs.

It'd be a lot easier for you to post faster if you skipped your little code words and just typed "blacks".

I'm equal oppurtunity when it comes to the forty seven percenters. 

[derspiess]

Good ol' race-obsessed Seedy

[Maximus]

You can be a real fuck.  You know what the answer is, unless you were completely daft before you left and still you wallow in her ignorance. Well done.

No, I was honestly curious to know what you meant by "entitlements".

Now I am also curious to know why you are so desperately trying to avoid naming one.

[CountDeMoney]

Simplistic understanding of tax policy by someone who is a proven intellectual light weight, not too surprising.

As if the intricacies of the tax code in the US hasn't been discussed ad nausea here. I assumed that you "intellectual giants" would be able to include that in your voting. I didn't realize that it was beyond you to do so.

Otto married above his station.  It doesn't get much more intellectually gigantic than that.

[merithyn]

I know there aren't a lot of votes on here, but I still think it's pretty cool that 77% of American Languishites think taxes should increase in some fashion or other. I wonder if as many would think that the cuts going on right now should also be kept as-is.

[crazy canuck]

Meri, I will try this one more time.  I am not sure why since your husband could easily explain it to you and so I assume you and he are just be assholes.  But for the benefit of anyone else who might be interested.

Once upon a time there was a wonder land called Canada.  In this wonderful land universality of all social programs was the rule.  Then one day the big bad deficit came and ate away at the ability of the government to fund universal programs.  All the people of Canada got together to talk about how to fight the big bad deficit and they decided that maybe it wouldnt be a good idea to give the richest man in the village the same benefits as the poorest man.  Everyone nodded in sage agreement and so it was that only the people that fell below a means tested income level recieved full benefits for things like Old Age Assistance payments, family assistance payments, rental assistance programs, etc etc etc. 

Then one day some bright bulb living in the US thought it would be a good idea to have universal entitlement programs.  One of the wise Canadians tried to show her the error of her ways.  But she was daft.

The End.

[CountDeMoney]

Good ol' race-obsessed Seedy

Eat me, food stamps-poor work ethic-welfare-entitlement society-blah people-47 percent-Kenyan Muslim hater.

See, so much typing to avoid what you crackers are really always trying to say.

[garbon]

Good ol' race-obsessed Seedy

Seriously. I'm actually black and I never cry that hard.

[merithyn]

Meri, I will try this one more time.  I am not sure why since your husband could easily explain it to you and so I assume you and he are just be assholes.  But for the benefit of anyone else who might be interested.

We're both at work, several miles away from each other. On top of that, you're the one that made the point. Why should he explain it to me? If that makes us assholes, well, okay. I guess I'm okay with that.

Once upon a time there was a wonder land called Canada.  In this wonderful land universality of all social programs was the rule.  Then one day the big bad deficit came and ate away at the ability of the government to fund universal programs.  All the people of Canada got together to talk about how to fight the big bad deficit and they decided that maybe it wouldnt be a good idea to give the richest man in the village the same benefits as the poorest man.  Everyone nodded in sage agreement and so it was that only the people that fell below a means tested income level recieved full benefits for things like Old Age Assistance payments, family assistance payments, rental assistance programs, etc etc etc. 

Then one day some bright bulb living in the US thought it would be a good idea to have universal entitlement programs.  One of the wise Canadians tried to show her the error of her ways.  But she was daft.

The End.

How is this different from what the US does? Or are you talking about just the Social Security program?

[crazy canuck]

I am done.

[CountDeMoney]

Good ol' race-obsessed Seedy

Seriously. I'm actually black and I never cry that hard.

Don't worry;  I cry for you. 

[merithyn]

I am done.

I guess maybe you're not understanding me, rather than the other way around.

I never suggested Universal Entitlement Programs like subsidization of living expenses, etc. I talked about Universal Healthcare, infrastructures, pension. You know, the same stuff that you do in Canada. Medicaid, funding for the poor, that kind of thing isn't what I meant by that. Maybe that wasn't clear by this part:

I disagree. I think a nominal increase on the middle class is a good idea. Not for the cash generated, but more for the idea that they are a part of the process that is giving them health insurance, a military, a decent infrastructure, and a retirement option.

I think that you misunderstood that I was carrying that idea forward with this quote:

There's such a thing as balance. Having a government that helps The Population is far better than one that helps The Poor. When one focuses overly much on The Poor, The Population sees it as, "They took my money so that one deadbeat mother with 46 kids I saw that one time at the store buying cigarettes doesn't have to work!" When it's billed as, "This is for everyone, and everyone will benefit" you're more likely to get people to buy into it, which means you're more likely to get legislators to vote for it.

I mean, I can see where the disconnect happened. You mistook the second quote to mean everything, though I'd clearly said only the things in the first quote. You know, those same things that you have in Canada that are universal benefits paid for by tax money.

Simple misunderstanding, but I think we've gotten it all cleared up now.

[derspiess]

Good ol' race-obsessed Seedy

Seriously. I'm actually black and I never cry that hard.

Don't worry;  I cry for you.