|
|
To add to the safety net defense, it really helps the economy for people to be confident in buying things, starting businesses and generally taking risks. If you face crippling medical costs the moment you or a loved one gets sick or has an accident, you are inclined to hoard money and live passively.
|
On November 11 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:54 BlueBird. wrote:On November 11 2012 10:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 10:28 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 09:57 Falling wrote:
@SayGen
Are there some number on that? Because I'm rather curious.
I just can't believe the tax breaks are sufficient enough to be the prime motivator. It may be enough to allow a couple realize their dream of having more than one child. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough. It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods. really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18. This is ridiculous. People do not actually end up with more money by having more children through welfare. It's just not true, I have no idea where you got this idea from. This, saygen you are completely out of touch. More children is more costs, in the past when you could have your kids work on your farm or help with other manual labor, and then when you got old and sick they would take care of you, because they are still living and working on your farm. Sure, that was "profitable" to have kids, but currently your just can't make "money" having kids. You also needed a ton of kids because half of them might not live past 12. If your so worried about poor people having kids I recommend you fund sex education and planned parenthood please, ill totally support you in that. Actually, there are studies that show that having kids has never been a financially profitable decision. Even during farm days, it was much cheaper to pay a worker to come in and work in the fields than raise your children to do it.
Wait, let's say my parents spend about 200K to raise me. I grow up and work and pull in maybe 100k a year on average. That seems like an okay investment. That's completely ignoring non-monetary benefits they get.
|
On November 11 2012 10:30 Tal wrote:
I'm left wing, but the fact the Republicans are getting so out of touch with reality really worries me, because it means there's no competition. Losing this election with reality effectively stacked in their favour is just embarrassing.
If they could just drop the 19th Century social policies and love of the military and rich, then they could put together a powerful small government platform. This would force the democrats to be more prudent with their government spending, which benefits everyone.
Basically I'd like the democrats to go on winning, but for the Republicans to put up enough of a fight to keep standards high.
I don't think most people feel the same way about Republican social policies as you do. tbh, most people do think there should be some restrictions on abortion, gay marriage is still controversial, raising taxes is still somewhat unpopular (though the taxing the rich position is gaining ground), and an increase in military funding isn't the most unpopular thing either.
It's mostly a problem with the fact that Republican politicians haven't been very consistent or honest, and the rhetoric they use is just not working. take this for example:
"We shouldn't tax the rich to fund the lazy."
no GOP politician said that exactly, but they sound like they are saying it. the problem with the statement is: 1) it oversimplifies the issue of taxes and welfare, and 2) it's insulting and inaccurate. instead they should say something like:
"We need to proceed with a balanced approach; not neglecting the poor and unfortunate, but also not penalizing the rich. However, it is a fact that the rich can bear more of the burden than the middle class and poor, and therefore they should pay more in proportion to their income. While we agree with that, we also think that simplifying the tax-code and eliminating loopholes and deductions can account for most of the increases in revenue that we would need."
GOP immigration policy is the only place where I think the Republicans have actually failed on a policy level, not just a communication level. Romney made a huge mistake by going so far to the right of Rick Perry on immigration during the primaries. Hispanics are usually pretty socially conservative, they just differ from Republicans on immigration and on taxation/welfare. if we evolve on immigration and tone down the class-warfare rhetoric, I think we could make serious gains among that demographic.
and, of course, we can't nominate dudes who give ambiguous, half-heated condemnations of rape while pushing for a strict pro-life position. I get that a lot of women feel very strongly about abortion, but the fact is that the pro-life movement is actually gaining ground among women, not losing ground. we should press abortion as something we oppose, but also tone down the rhetoric on it and support other measures too (incentives for in-wedlock births, benefits for single-mothers, and, yes.... "comprehensive" sex education).
conservatives did miscalculate the positions of the American people, but so have liberals if they think that abortion is some killer issue that's driving people away from Republicans in droves. we would lose more votes by dropping our pro-life platform than we would gain. by far.
|
On November 11 2012 11:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:On November 11 2012 10:54 BlueBird. wrote:On November 11 2012 10:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 10:28 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 09:57 Falling wrote:
@SayGen
Are there some number on that? Because I'm rather curious.
I just can't believe the tax breaks are sufficient enough to be the prime motivator. It may be enough to allow a couple realize their dream of having more than one child. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough. It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods. really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18. This is ridiculous. People do not actually end up with more money by having more children through welfare. It's just not true, I have no idea where you got this idea from. This, saygen you are completely out of touch. More children is more costs, in the past when you could have your kids work on your farm or help with other manual labor, and then when you got old and sick they would take care of you, because they are still living and working on your farm. Sure, that was "profitable" to have kids, but currently your just can't make "money" having kids. You also needed a ton of kids because half of them might not live past 12. If your so worried about poor people having kids I recommend you fund sex education and planned parenthood please, ill totally support you in that. Actually, there are studies that show that having kids has never been a financially profitable decision. Even during farm days, it was much cheaper to pay a worker to come in and work in the fields than raise your children to do it. Wait, let's say my parents spend about 200K to raise me. I grow up and work and pull in maybe 100k a year on average. That seems like an okay investment. That's completely ignoring non-monetary benefits they get.
no child with a 200k price tag makes 100k a year. Fuck, my COLLEGE cost more than 200k, and I wouldn't be making 100k even if didn't have problems with authority and an unemployable degree
|
On November 11 2012 11:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:On November 11 2012 10:54 BlueBird. wrote:On November 11 2012 10:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 10:28 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 09:57 Falling wrote:
@SayGen
Are there some number on that? Because I'm rather curious.
I just can't believe the tax breaks are sufficient enough to be the prime motivator. It may be enough to allow a couple realize their dream of having more than one child. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough. It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods. really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18. This is ridiculous. People do not actually end up with more money by having more children through welfare. It's just not true, I have no idea where you got this idea from. This, saygen you are completely out of touch. More children is more costs, in the past when you could have your kids work on your farm or help with other manual labor, and then when you got old and sick they would take care of you, because they are still living and working on your farm. Sure, that was "profitable" to have kids, but currently your just can't make "money" having kids. You also needed a ton of kids because half of them might not live past 12. If your so worried about poor people having kids I recommend you fund sex education and planned parenthood please, ill totally support you in that. Actually, there are studies that show that having kids has never been a financially profitable decision. Even during farm days, it was much cheaper to pay a worker to come in and work in the fields than raise your children to do it. Wait, let's say my parents spend about 200K to raise me. I grow up and work and pull in maybe 100k a year on average. That seems like an okay investment. That's completely ignoring non-monetary benefits they get.
But you're not paying them 100k a year. Also, if they would have personally invested that money, they would probably see much more reliable (and higher) gains for themselves.
|
On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:30 Tal wrote:
I'm left wing, but the fact the Republicans are getting so out of touch with reality really worries me, because it means there's no competition. Losing this election with reality effectively stacked in their favour is just embarrassing.
If they could just drop the 19th Century social policies and love of the military and rich, then they could put together a powerful small government platform. This would force the democrats to be more prudent with their government spending, which benefits everyone.
Basically I'd like the democrats to go on winning, but for the Republicans to put up enough of a fight to keep standards high. I don't think most people feel the same way about Republican social policies as you do. tbh, most people do think there should be some restrictions on abortion, gay marriage is still controversial, raising taxes is still somewhat unpopular (though the taxing the rich position is gaining ground), and an increase in military funding isn't the most unpopular thing either. It's mostly a problem with the fact that Republican politicians haven't been very consistent or honest, and the rhetoric they use is just not working. take this for example: "We shouldn't tax the rich to fund the lazy." no GOP politician said that exactly, but they sound like they are saying it. the problem with the statement is: 1) it oversimplifies the issue of taxes and welfare, and 2) it's insulting and inaccurate. instead they should say something like: "We need to proceed with a balanced approach; not neglecting the poor and unfortunate, but also not penalizing the rich. However, it is a fact that the rich can bear more of the burden than the middle class and poor, and therefore they should pay more in proportion to their income. While we agree with that, we also think that simplifying the tax-code and eliminating loopholes and deductions can account for most of the increases in revenue that we would need." GOP immigration policy is the only place where I think the Republicans have actually failed on a policy level, not just a communication level. Romney made a huge mistake by going so far to the right of Rick Perry on immigration during the primaries. Hispanics are usually pretty socially conservative, they just differ from Republicans on immigration and on taxation/welfare. if we evolve on immigration and tone down the class-warfare rhetoric, I think we could make serious gains among that demographic. and, of course, we can't nominate dudes who give ambiguous, half-heated condemnations of rape while pushing for a strict pro-life position. I get that a lot of women feel very strongly about abortion, but the fact is that the pro-life movement is actually gaining ground among women, not losing ground. we should press abortion as something we oppose, but also tone down the rhetoric on it and support other measures too (incentives for in-wedlock births, benefits for single-mothers, and, yes.... "comprehensive" sex education). conservatives did miscalculate the positions of the American people, but so have liberals if they think that abortion is some killer issue that's driving people away from Republicans in droves. we would lose more votes by dropping our pro-life platform than we would gain. by far.
Not to mention how much Republicans have stuck to the "Government is useless" line of thinking. A lot of people that side with Republicans do so with hesitation, because they like programs when you start pointing out specifics. What most people often want are government programs that are more accountable and efficient, not necessarily fewer programs.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 11 2012 11:48 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 11:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 11 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:On November 11 2012 10:54 BlueBird. wrote:On November 11 2012 10:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 10:28 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:[quote] http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough. It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods. really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18. This is ridiculous. People do not actually end up with more money by having more children through welfare. It's just not true, I have no idea where you got this idea from. This, saygen you are completely out of touch. More children is more costs, in the past when you could have your kids work on your farm or help with other manual labor, and then when you got old and sick they would take care of you, because they are still living and working on your farm. Sure, that was "profitable" to have kids, but currently your just can't make "money" having kids. You also needed a ton of kids because half of them might not live past 12. If your so worried about poor people having kids I recommend you fund sex education and planned parenthood please, ill totally support you in that. Actually, there are studies that show that having kids has never been a financially profitable decision. Even during farm days, it was much cheaper to pay a worker to come in and work in the fields than raise your children to do it. Wait, let's say my parents spend about 200K to raise me. I grow up and work and pull in maybe 100k a year on average. That seems like an okay investment. That's completely ignoring non-monetary benefits they get. no child with a 200k price tag makes 100k a year. Fuck, my COLLEGE cost more than 200k, and I wouldn't be making 100k even if didn't have problems with authority and an unemployable degree
lol english majors
|
On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:30 Tal wrote:
I'm left wing, but the fact the Republicans are getting so out of touch with reality really worries me, because it means there's no competition. Losing this election with reality effectively stacked in their favour is just embarrassing.
If they could just drop the 19th Century social policies and love of the military and rich, then they could put together a powerful small government platform. This would force the democrats to be more prudent with their government spending, which benefits everyone.
Basically I'd like the democrats to go on winning, but for the Republicans to put up enough of a fight to keep standards high. I don't think most people feel the same way about Republican social policies as you do. tbh, most people do think there should be some restrictions on abortion, gay marriage is still controversial, raising taxes is still somewhat unpopular (though the taxing the rich position is gaining ground), and an increase in military funding isn't the most unpopular thing either. It's mostly a problem with the fact that Republican politicians haven't been very consistent or honest, and the rhetoric they use is just not working. take this for example: "We shouldn't tax the rich to fund the lazy." no GOP politician said that exactly, but they sound like they are saying it. the problem with the statement is: 1) it oversimplifies the issue of taxes and welfare, and 2) it's insulting and inaccurate. instead they should say something like: "We need to proceed with a balanced approach; not neglecting the poor and unfortunate, but also not penalizing the rich. However, it is a fact that the rich can bear more of the burden than the middle class and poor, and therefore they should pay more in proportion to their income. While we agree with that, we also think that simplifying the tax-code and eliminating loopholes and deductions can account for most of the increases in revenue that we would need." GOP immigration policy is the only place where I think the Republicans have actually failed on a policy level, not just a communication level. Romney made a huge mistake by going so far to the right of Rick Perry on immigration during the primaries. Hispanics are usually pretty socially conservative, they just differ from Republicans on immigration and on taxation/welfare. if we evolve on immigration and tone down the class-warfare rhetoric, I think we could make serious gains among that demographic. and, of course, we can't nominate dudes who give ambiguous, half-heated condemnations of rape while pushing for a strict pro-life position. I get that a lot of women feel very strongly about abortion, but the fact is that the pro-life movement is actually gaining ground among women, not losing ground. we should press abortion as something we oppose, but also tone down the rhetoric on it and support other measures too (incentives for in-wedlock births, benefits for single-mothers, and, yes.... "comprehensive" sex education). conservatives did miscalculate the positions of the American people, but so have liberals if they think that abortion is some killer issue that's driving people away from Republicans in droves. we would lose more votes by dropping our pro-life platform than we would gain. by far.
I think people need to realize they're on the wrong side of history when they oppose giving other people civil rights. Unfortunately GOP got in bed with the evangelicals and now they're stuck with them.
|
hispanics have voted largely in favor of democrats since forever. i know a lot of republicans are hopeful hispanics will drive their numbers up in future elections but that is just wishful thinking. i hear a lot of "hispanics are deeply religious" "hispanics are socially conservative". the truth is the republican party is not going to get the hispanic vote any time soon. sticking a hispanic man in the election isn't going to trick anyone, it's just going to highlight how the GOP thinks.
|
On November 11 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 10:30 Tal wrote:
I'm left wing, but the fact the Republicans are getting so out of touch with reality really worries me, because it means there's no competition. Losing this election with reality effectively stacked in their favour is just embarrassing.
If they could just drop the 19th Century social policies and love of the military and rich, then they could put together a powerful small government platform. This would force the democrats to be more prudent with their government spending, which benefits everyone.
Basically I'd like the democrats to go on winning, but for the Republicans to put up enough of a fight to keep standards high. I don't think most people feel the same way about Republican social policies as you do. tbh, most people do think there should be some restrictions on abortion, gay marriage is still controversial, raising taxes is still somewhat unpopular (though the taxing the rich position is gaining ground), and an increase in military funding isn't the most unpopular thing either. It's mostly a problem with the fact that Republican politicians haven't been very consistent or honest, and the rhetoric they use is just not working. take this for example: "We shouldn't tax the rich to fund the lazy." no GOP politician said that exactly, but they sound like they are saying it. the problem with the statement is: 1) it oversimplifies the issue of taxes and welfare, and 2) it's insulting and inaccurate. instead they should say something like: "We need to proceed with a balanced approach; not neglecting the poor and unfortunate, but also not penalizing the rich. However, it is a fact that the rich can bear more of the burden than the middle class and poor, and therefore they should pay more in proportion to their income. While we agree with that, we also think that simplifying the tax-code and eliminating loopholes and deductions can account for most of the increases in revenue that we would need." GOP immigration policy is the only place where I think the Republicans have actually failed on a policy level, not just a communication level. Romney made a huge mistake by going so far to the right of Rick Perry on immigration during the primaries. Hispanics are usually pretty socially conservative, they just differ from Republicans on immigration and on taxation/welfare. if we evolve on immigration and tone down the class-warfare rhetoric, I think we could make serious gains among that demographic. and, of course, we can't nominate dudes who give ambiguous, half-heated condemnations of rape while pushing for a strict pro-life position. I get that a lot of women feel very strongly about abortion, but the fact is that the pro-life movement is actually gaining ground among women, not losing ground. we should press abortion as something we oppose, but also tone down the rhetoric on it and support other measures too (incentives for in-wedlock births, benefits for single-mothers, and, yes.... "comprehensive" sex education). conservatives did miscalculate the positions of the American people, but so have liberals if they think that abortion is some killer issue that's driving people away from Republicans in droves. we would lose more votes by dropping our pro-life platform than we would gain. by far. Not to mention how much Republicans have stuck to the "Government is useless" line of thinking. A lot of people that side with Republicans do so with hesitation, because they like programs when you start pointing out specifics. What most people often want are government programs that are more accountable and efficient, not necessarily fewer programs.
exactly, more efficiency and more effectiveness is what we should be pushing, not more elimination. and we should frame all of our arguments as saving these programs. Reagan holds a lot of the same positions as Romney, but Obama would have been roflstomped by Reagan because Reagan knew how to sell his shit (and was a little more moderate). and most importantly, politicians like Reagan knew how to pick their battles. Clinton was really good at that too, picking his battles correctly.
I just can't get the bitter taste out of my mouth when I think of how easy it should have been to beat Obama. Huntsman was probably where we needed to go on this one.
|
On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 09:57 Falling wrote:
@SayGen
Are there some number on that? Because I'm rather curious.
I just can't believe the tax breaks are sufficient enough to be the prime motivator. It may be enough to allow a couple realize their dream of having more than one child. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough. It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods.
really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18.
|
On November 11 2012 11:58 heliusx wrote:
hispanics have voted largely in favor of democrats since forever. i know a lot of republicans are hopeful hispanics will drive their numbers up in future elections but that is just wishful thinking. i hear a lot of "hispanics are deeply religious" "hispanics are socially conservative". the truth is the republican party is not going to get the hispanic vote any time soon. sticking a hispanic man in the election isn't going to trick anyone, it's just going to highlight how the GOP thinks.
we don't need to get a majority, we just need to get more than we got.
if Romney had picked up 10% more Hispanics and 3% more blacks, we would have won this thing by a landslide.
(and I don't support picking candidates just for their skin color, but at the same time, a big complaint from liberals is that we're too white. well, highlighting the fact that there ARE successful, Republican conservatives who aren't white is not a bad thing, and isn't racist either.)
|
On November 11 2012 12:05 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:On November 11 2012 10:07 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 09:57 Falling wrote:
@SayGen
Are there some number on that? Because I'm rather curious.
I just can't believe the tax breaks are sufficient enough to be the prime motivator. It may be enough to allow a couple realize their dream of having more than one child. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Creditthere are more rebates on top of that such as most of their income taxes being refunded if they make less than a certain amount. don't take this as me agreeing with saygen because i think he hasn't a clue about living in the real world raising children on minimal wages. it's rough and i watched my mom work her ass off to raise us and it still wasn't enough. my dad was disabled 100% while serving in the us army and we relied on that measly welfare check. $1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough. It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods. really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18.
yeah, you posted that an hour ago and it's just as stupid and uninformed now as it was then.
|
On November 11 2012 12:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:Huntsman was probably where we needed to go on this one.
dude, even I kinda like huntsman. If you guys had a primary system that could nominate a guy like that you would destroy
On November 11 2012 11:56 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 11:48 sam!zdat wrote:On November 11 2012 11:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 11 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:On November 11 2012 10:54 BlueBird. wrote:On November 11 2012 10:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 10:28 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:21 heliusx wrote:On November 11 2012 10:19 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:
[quote]
$1000 tax credit/ child? Yeah, I think that's pretty comparable to Canada. Income tax refund for low wages- we have that too. The tax credit is helpful to survive, but that's not going to make poor families pop out a bunch of babies to start rolling in the dough.
It's more than 1000. The tax credit is one part of the overall tax spending. There are multipul programs. WIC for example is not part of the tax credit and yet it gives money. Also the food you get from welfare stamps (a plastic card now) is increased based on number of children. I do not know the full scale of all the programs since I will never qualify for them, but I do take the word of the people i've tlaked to about it. The money is out there, you need only claim it. so people are having babies so they can have food for their babies from the government? that doesn't even make sense. you claimed people have babies to receive extra funds from the government. WIC is not money, it's a voucher to receive basic healthy foods for young children, such as bread, milk, cheese and other staples. It's basically an attempt to give a balanced diet to children in contrast of food stamps which allows the parent to buy any foods. really, come on you have to realize that they simply hold onto the 1000 and use the wic vouchers and other programs to 'care' for the child until it's 18. This is ridiculous. People do not actually end up with more money by having more children through welfare. It's just not true, I have no idea where you got this idea from. This, saygen you are completely out of touch. More children is more costs, in the past when you could have your kids work on your farm or help with other manual labor, and then when you got old and sick they would take care of you, because they are still living and working on your farm. Sure, that was "profitable" to have kids, but currently your just can't make "money" having kids. You also needed a ton of kids because half of them might not live past 12. If your so worried about poor people having kids I recommend you fund sex education and planned parenthood please, ill totally support you in that. Actually, there are studies that show that having kids has never been a financially profitable decision. Even during farm days, it was much cheaper to pay a worker to come in and work in the fields than raise your children to do it. Wait, let's say my parents spend about 200K to raise me. I grow up and work and pull in maybe 100k a year on average. That seems like an okay investment. That's completely ignoring non-monetary benefits they get. no child with a 200k price tag makes 100k a year. Fuck, my COLLEGE cost more than 200k, and I wouldn't be making 100k even if didn't have problems with authority and an unemployable degree lol english majors
suck it yo I'm spiritually fulfilled 
|
|
|
On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:30 Tal wrote:
I'm left wing, but the fact the Republicans are getting so out of touch with reality really worries me, because it means there's no competition. Losing this election with reality effectively stacked in their favour is just embarrassing.
If they could just drop the 19th Century social policies and love of the military and rich, then they could put together a powerful small government platform. This would force the democrats to be more prudent with their government spending, which benefits everyone.
Basically I'd like the democrats to go on winning, but for the Republicans to put up enough of a fight to keep standards high. I don't think most people feel the same way about Republican social policies as you do. tbh, most people do think there should be some restrictions on abortion, gay marriage is still controversial, raising taxes is still somewhat unpopular (though the taxing the rich position is gaining ground), and an increase in military funding isn't the most unpopular thing either. It's mostly a problem with the fact that Republican politicians haven't been very consistent or honest, and the rhetoric they use is just not working. take this for example: "We shouldn't tax the rich to fund the lazy." no GOP politician said that exactly, but they sound like they are saying it. the problem with the statement is: 1) it oversimplifies the issue of taxes and welfare, and 2) it's insulting and inaccurate. instead they should say something like: "We need to proceed with a balanced approach; not neglecting the poor and unfortunate, but also not penalizing the rich. However, it is a fact that the rich can bear more of the burden than the middle class and poor, and therefore they should pay more in proportion to their income. While we agree with that, we also think that simplifying the tax-code and eliminating loopholes and deductions can account for most of the increases in revenue that we would need." GOP immigration policy is the only place where I think the Republicans have actually failed on a policy level, not just a communication level. Romney made a huge mistake by going so far to the right of Rick Perry on immigration during the primaries. Hispanics are usually pretty socially conservative, they just differ from Republicans on immigration and on taxation/welfare. if we evolve on immigration and tone down the class-warfare rhetoric, I think we could make serious gains among that demographic. and, of course, we can't nominate dudes who give ambiguous, half-heated condemnations of rape while pushing for a strict pro-life position. I get that a lot of women feel very strongly about abortion, but the fact is that the pro-life movement is actually gaining ground among women, not losing ground. we should press abortion as something we oppose, but also tone down the rhetoric on it and support other measures too (incentives for in-wedlock births, benefits for single-mothers, and, yes.... "comprehensive" sex education). conservatives did miscalculate the positions of the American people, but so have liberals if they think that abortion is some killer issue that's driving people away from Republicans in droves. we would lose more votes by dropping our pro-life platform than we would gain. by far.
It doesn't really matter what most people think - it matters what independents think, and any one of those social issues can be enough to turn them against the republicans.
To take your points:
Abortion. People might want some restrictions, but the GOP position is one of absolute restriction. I don't think having a more nuanced position would lose the GOP votes - who would those votes even go to?
Gay rights - it is still controversial, but all the evidence shows it's becoming more and more accepted. Being at odds with that is not a promising path.
Raising taxes: as you say, taxing the rich is more and more popular. But more importantly, most people are pragmatic enough to see taxes can sometimes be good. The GOP says 1 dollar of tax raises isn't acceptable even if you make 10 dollars of savings. This is needlessly extreme.
Military funding I'm not sure about, as it didn't seem to be taken up as a big issue in the campaign. But as an outsider the percentage of military spending against, education, seems difficult to swallow. At the very least increasing that spending doesn't seem to go with the model of fiscal prudence they like to set out.
You are right about presentation being an issue, but I think you are overplaying it. Romney presented his taxplan fairly closely to what you suggest - but it just didn't add up.
Immigration policies were definitely a mistake, I'll agree on that 
|
On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:30 Tal wrote:
I'm left wing, but the fact the Republicans are getting so out of touch with reality really worries me, because it means there's no competition. Losing this election with reality effectively stacked in their favour is just embarrassing.
If they could just drop the 19th Century social policies and love of the military and rich, then they could put together a powerful small government platform. This would force the democrats to be more prudent with their government spending, which benefits everyone.
Basically I'd like the democrats to go on winning, but for the Republicans to put up enough of a fight to keep standards high. I don't think most people feel the same way about Republican social policies as you do. tbh, most people do think there should be some restrictions on abortion, gay marriage is still controversial, raising taxes is still somewhat unpopular (though the taxing the rich position is gaining ground), and an increase in military funding isn't the most unpopular thing either.
Gay marriage is less controversial now than it was 10 years ago (back then, it was a pipe dream; today, it's law in many states). It will be even less controversial 10 years from now than it is today.
Republicans are on the losing side of this argument. Just like they were on civil rights. And many other arguments. When you're shown to be objectively wrong on many issues, when you constantly argue for things that history shows are bullshit and potentially hate driven, people are going to stop listening to you.
That's why a lot of independents these days are lapsed Republicans. Many will vote for Republican candidates and hold some Republican views, but they will not identify themselves as Republicans.
On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
It's mostly a problem with the fact that Republican politicians haven't been very consistent or honest, and the rhetoric they use is just not working. take this for example:
"We shouldn't tax the rich to fund the lazy."
no GOP politician said that exactly, but they sound like they are saying it. the problem with the statement is: 1) it oversimplifies the issue of taxes and welfare, and 2) it's insulting and inaccurate. instead they should say something like:
"We need to proceed with a balanced approach; not neglecting the poor and unfortunate, but also not penalizing the rich. However, it is a fact that the rich can bear more of the burden than the middle class and poor, and therefore they should pay more in proportion to their income. While we agree with that, we also think that simplifying the tax-code and eliminating loopholes and deductions can account for most of the increases in revenue that we would need."
Ignoring the veracity of those claims (it's very possible to objectively determine whether "eliminating loopholes and deductions can account for most of the increases in revenue that we would need"), the problem is that this is not the right's position. This is a centrist position. It's not a fiscal conservative position.
For them to espouse this belief would require them to change their position and move towards the center. Do you want them to keep their ideology or change it?
On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
GOP immigration policy is the only place where I think the Republicans have actually failed on a policy level, not just a communication level. Romney made a huge mistake by going so far to the right of Rick Perry on immigration during the primaries. Hispanics are usually pretty socially conservative, they just differ from Republicans on immigration and on taxation/welfare. if we evolve on immigration and tone down the class-warfare rhetoric, I think we could make serious gains among that demographic.
Or they can realize that Republicans are obviously making a play for them and are completely insincere about the whole thing.
Voters aren't as stupid as some people think they are. Usually. If you want voters, you have to actually change your policy. You don't "tone down the class-warfare rhetoric", you "stop being a party of rich white folks that ostracizes everyone else."
On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and, of course, we can't nominate dudes who give ambiguous, half-heated condemnations of rape while pushing for a strict pro-life position. I get that a lot of women feel very strongly about abortion, but the fact is that the pro-life movement is actually gaining ground among women, not losing ground. we should press abortion as something we oppose, but also tone down the rhetoric on it and support other measures too (incentives for in-wedlock births, benefits for single-mothers, and, yes.... "comprehensive" sex education).
conservatives did miscalculate the positions of the American people, but so have liberals if they think that abortion is some killer issue that's driving people away from Republicans in droves. we would lose more votes by dropping our pro-life platform than we would gain. by far.
Yes, and those "pro-life" votes are also often attached to Christian evangelical conservatives who have anti-immigration views and will accept no compromise on sex education. It all comes back to that in the end.
The Republican base's views are not some arbitrary mixture of things that you can just throw a few away and keep some. In a large part, they come from a fairly homogeneous voting block: social conservatives. They are pro-life. They are also anti-immigration. They are also anti-sex-education. And most importantly of all, they are willing to compromise on none of these.
You are going to either lose the base, or the base will be all you have left.
Live or die; make your choice.
|
On November 11 2012 02:49 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 02:41 Sanctimonius wrote:On November 11 2012 02:23 SayGen wrote:
It's really upsetting to see how people sell themselves short, I was really hoping America would start climbing back on the educational ladder to success. Now I fear only our private schools will offer any shelter.
Under Obama Americans have scored lower than any time since Bush Senior. Our high schools are nothing but daycares, too many 'graduate' without having the basic skills of reading and writing. If you want to make something of yourself you are all but forced into college- which costs thousands of dollars. Less money in our classrooms are spent on learning instead we will just hire more unqualified teachers who can't even obtain a 4 year degree.
American truly is under decline.
Average homeowner makes more than ~2000$ less under an Obama Admin and soon that 2000 is going to be ~2200 soon as Obamacare takes effect.
I won't go as far as saying Obama is ruining our country, we were already headed down before he took office--but Obama sure does like speeding the process us.
In a world where knowledge is power, America is fucked.
Shame Ron Paul didn't win.
I agree about the schools, but it seems to me that the blame entirely lies with NCLB and those that decided to enforce it - teachers are entirely judged on test scores and nothing else, funding is pulled from struggling schools (because that makes sense...) and teachers can find themselves having to teach from a script - finding themselves in the wonderful position of simultaneously being blamed for failing in the classroom while having no control over what is taught and how. I have a teacher friend in Cali who has kids in her class who cannot read or write, and in some cases English is a second language barely understood. Yet, as a 4th grade teacher she has to teach 4th grade English in class, regardless of whether these kids have the ability of third-, second- or even first-grade. Then she is judged for their failures. NCLB has some good points, but the bad points far outweigh them and is holding back a generation of kids in this country. Just wait until they enter the work force. NCLB is one part of a bigger issue, which is to accept that kids are less intelgent. fact is, we have lower IQ kids cause poor/minorities tend to have more kids. Those poor/minorities (no hate to them because of race or class-- just calling a flower a flower) Until we can stop giving tax cuts for having more children, people will see bringing another child into this world as a financial move. We need to also introduce a merrit based school plan. What I would propose. Take all the money that goes to schools right now (including the teachers union fund) and take 90% of it and give it out EVENLY to all schools located in the US. which ever schools do the best gets a bonus from the remaining 10%. This way you offer an incentive to do well, while not harming schools that do poorly. Break the teachers union. Demand all teachers have a4 year degree from an accrediated school. Stop hiring excess teachers, no reason to have more than 1 teacher per 20 students.
Did you really just say that poor and minority people are inherently less intelligent than others?
|
I take a great deal of pleasure in seeing the folks at Gallup get the shit they deserve.
|
On November 11 2012 12:18 Eschaton wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 02:49 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 02:41 Sanctimonius wrote:On November 11 2012 02:23 SayGen wrote:
It's really upsetting to see how people sell themselves short, I was really hoping America would start climbing back on the educational ladder to success. Now I fear only our private schools will offer any shelter.
Under Obama Americans have scored lower than any time since Bush Senior. Our high schools are nothing but daycares, too many 'graduate' without having the basic skills of reading and writing. If you want to make something of yourself you are all but forced into college- which costs thousands of dollars. Less money in our classrooms are spent on learning instead we will just hire more unqualified teachers who can't even obtain a 4 year degree.
American truly is under decline.
Average homeowner makes more than ~2000$ less under an Obama Admin and soon that 2000 is going to be ~2200 soon as Obamacare takes effect.
I won't go as far as saying Obama is ruining our country, we were already headed down before he took office--but Obama sure does like speeding the process us.
In a world where knowledge is power, America is fucked.
Shame Ron Paul didn't win.
I agree about the schools, but it seems to me that the blame entirely lies with NCLB and those that decided to enforce it - teachers are entirely judged on test scores and nothing else, funding is pulled from struggling schools (because that makes sense...) and teachers can find themselves having to teach from a script - finding themselves in the wonderful position of simultaneously being blamed for failing in the classroom while having no control over what is taught and how. I have a teacher friend in Cali who has kids in her class who cannot read or write, and in some cases English is a second language barely understood. Yet, as a 4th grade teacher she has to teach 4th grade English in class, regardless of whether these kids have the ability of third-, second- or even first-grade. Then she is judged for their failures. NCLB has some good points, but the bad points far outweigh them and is holding back a generation of kids in this country. Just wait until they enter the work force. NCLB is one part of a bigger issue, which is to accept that kids are less intelgent. fact is, we have lower IQ kids cause poor/minorities tend to have more kids. Those poor/minorities (no hate to them because of race or class-- just calling a flower a flower) Until we can stop giving tax cuts for having more children, people will see bringing another child into this world as a financial move. We need to also introduce a merrit based school plan. What I would propose. Take all the money that goes to schools right now (including the teachers union fund) and take 90% of it and give it out EVENLY to all schools located in the US. which ever schools do the best gets a bonus from the remaining 10%. This way you offer an incentive to do well, while not harming schools that do poorly. Break the teachers union. Demand all teachers have a4 year degree from an accrediated school. Stop hiring excess teachers, no reason to have more than 1 teacher per 20 students. Did you really just say that poor and minority people are inherently less intelligent than others?
they do in fact have lower IQs, seeing as IQ is a purely theoretical entity defined as "that for which the IQ test tests"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
