Definitely more accurate than not. Too bad a democrat was involved in the crafting of the Ryan bill this time. I wonder how that’s gonna sit in the craw of the democratic regime.
IMO the democrat was lured by the modification from the 2011 Ryal Plan to take away tax credits and deductions from the “very rich”….in hopes of attracting more Dem votes in Congress?-It will not work…because the Democrats only believe in “spend, spend, spend” and “Higher Taxes” on income earners! Dems never care that raising taxes creates recessions and more unemployment…..their Re-Election meat!-and Dems do not seem to care that Medicare is BROKE and so is Medicaid….and if the Ryan Plan or something akin to it isn’t passed and signed by the Prez…that little old lady will drown.
Republicants want to destroy the social safety net because like other rich people they don’t need it and don’t think they should supply less fortunate people with help.
@ Jack: “Also the lower half should contribute something even if it is a small $100 every year or work one or two days a week for unemployment”- That’s a very novel idea, and one that makes a lot of sense. If someone’s not paying anything in taxes, or more specifically they are getting unemployment, they should have to work on something for the public good. After all, it’s at our expense they get to sit and do nothing. Time for them to earn it.@ Heavy: I have to hold the line against your logic on the “free healthcare.” First off, nothing is “free.” Someone had to pay for it. And when I, a middle-class American is working my 9-5 trying to make a good living for my family has to pay for someone else’s health care, on top of me having to pay for my own family’s health care, I take issue with that. I call those people “Moochers.” Do I love what I do? No. Sometimes I absolutely hate it. But I still do the job so I can provide for my family. In recent years, we have seen a drifting of people leaning away from the concept that they “shouldn’t have to work.” The concept that you are supposed to do the responsible thing and contribute to the whole is degrading. It has been for the past 15 or so years. The concept of “I Deserve” is slowly taking root in our society, and to its deriment. I remember watching an interview on TV about… maybe 10 or 15 years ago where they had a youth (about 17 or 18 years old) at the barber shop and he was being interviewed about getting a job. His response: “I ain’t workin’ for no minimum wage.” While he deserves a slap upside the head, because he’s a teenager and that’s what teens make, but it’s more an issue that his mentality was that he doesn’t have to work to provide for himself. And that mentality is spreading. And that’s why people like me are getting upset.Heavy, I get your issue with social security. I’ve been paying in for quite a few years myself. But let me ask you this: Would you rather receive less than you would under the current system, or would you rather your children not see it at all? Because the way I see it, those are our two choices. SS and Medicare, in their current forms, are flat out unsustainable. You can’t tax people enough to keep all the social programs we have in place. The money has to come from somewhere, and it can’t all come from the upper half. Either we take from the bottom, or we shrink the amount everyone gets. Or some combination of both so it doesn’t hurt as much. I’m in favor of small cuts to the programs, and then enacting small taxes on the bottom half who don’t pay in right now. Oh, and you saying eating is a luxury? How many of the bottom half of the tax bracket smoke cigarettes? Pretty certain that’s not a necessity for life. And at around 7-10 bucks a pack, I think they can swing a bit for paying in for the benefits they enjoy.
@ Heavy: You beat yourself at your own argument. Here’s why: You said I pay taxes and drive on the roads that I couldn’t possibly afford to pay for myself. You’re right. Does that mean, by your logic, that those who pay no taxes shouldn’t be permitted to drive on the roads? Or use other public services? It’s about contributing to the whole; those who pay no taxes do not contribute anything to the public good; the 53% who do pay taxes make up 100% of the other 47%‘s contributions. So when that 47% bemoans that they can’t afford to kick anything in, yet they go buy cigarettes, I have very little simpathy for the poor people who still can swing cash for those things not considered a necessity. They clearly can afford to pay some taxes on their income if they can afford to buy cigarettes or booze. I do understand that there are those people out there who flat out can’t afford even cigarettes, and those people I understand can’t truly afford taxes. But if you buy cigs or booze? Cough up your share buddy. It’s in this vein that I believe all income tax should be removed and instead have a national sales tax, with exemptions made for food and medicine. That way those who truly can’t afford to pay taxes don’t, and the rest of us who can, do. If you want to buy cigarettes, go for it. At least you’ll be paying into the pot when you do.I do agree that there should be no sacred cows when it comes to cuts. But we shouldn’t be cutting because of partisan belief structures, we should be cutting based on practicality and sustainability. For example: Defense can be cut to force efficiency in programs, but not to force troop size shrinkage (which diminishes our ability to wage war). Social Security should be cut not because we feel that people don’t deserve it, but because without proper cuts and reforms it will bankrupt itself. Medicare should be cut not because we feel there are those who don’t need it, but because without those cuts the system will collapse or explode our national debt. If we truly want these programs to be around when our kids are retiring, we need to make the hard choices and take some of this on our chins. After all, a parent’s job is to provide a better life for their children than they had themselves. This is the only way we can accomplish that.
Wraithkin about 12 years ago
Definitely more accurate than not. Too bad a democrat was involved in the crafting of the Ryan bill this time. I wonder how that’s gonna sit in the craw of the democratic regime.
disgustedtaxpayer about 12 years ago
disgustedtaxpayer said, less than a minute ago
IMO the democrat was lured by the modification from the 2011 Ryal Plan to take away tax credits and deductions from the “very rich”….in hopes of attracting more Dem votes in Congress?-It will not work…because the Democrats only believe in “spend, spend, spend” and “Higher Taxes” on income earners! Dems never care that raising taxes creates recessions and more unemployment…..their Re-Election meat!-and Dems do not seem to care that Medicare is BROKE and so is Medicaid….and if the Ryan Plan or something akin to it isn’t passed and signed by the Prez…that little old lady will drown.
Dtroutma about 12 years ago
A lead “life ring”, and an ice flow: “Ryan Plan”.
Heavy B about 12 years ago
Ramirez drew that wrong. That life saver should be in the shape of an anvil
Farley55 about 12 years ago
Ramirez captures the reality of the situation beautifully. There is only one party currently trying to save Medicare, and it’s not the Democrats.
joe vignone about 12 years ago
Republicants want to destroy the social safety net because like other rich people they don’t need it and don’t think they should supply less fortunate people with help.
Wraithkin about 12 years ago
@ Jack: “Also the lower half should contribute something even if it is a small $100 every year or work one or two days a week for unemployment”- That’s a very novel idea, and one that makes a lot of sense. If someone’s not paying anything in taxes, or more specifically they are getting unemployment, they should have to work on something for the public good. After all, it’s at our expense they get to sit and do nothing. Time for them to earn it.@ Heavy: I have to hold the line against your logic on the “free healthcare.” First off, nothing is “free.” Someone had to pay for it. And when I, a middle-class American is working my 9-5 trying to make a good living for my family has to pay for someone else’s health care, on top of me having to pay for my own family’s health care, I take issue with that. I call those people “Moochers.” Do I love what I do? No. Sometimes I absolutely hate it. But I still do the job so I can provide for my family. In recent years, we have seen a drifting of people leaning away from the concept that they “shouldn’t have to work.” The concept that you are supposed to do the responsible thing and contribute to the whole is degrading. It has been for the past 15 or so years. The concept of “I Deserve” is slowly taking root in our society, and to its deriment. I remember watching an interview on TV about… maybe 10 or 15 years ago where they had a youth (about 17 or 18 years old) at the barber shop and he was being interviewed about getting a job. His response: “I ain’t workin’ for no minimum wage.” While he deserves a slap upside the head, because he’s a teenager and that’s what teens make, but it’s more an issue that his mentality was that he doesn’t have to work to provide for himself. And that mentality is spreading. And that’s why people like me are getting upset.Heavy, I get your issue with social security. I’ve been paying in for quite a few years myself. But let me ask you this: Would you rather receive less than you would under the current system, or would you rather your children not see it at all? Because the way I see it, those are our two choices. SS and Medicare, in their current forms, are flat out unsustainable. You can’t tax people enough to keep all the social programs we have in place. The money has to come from somewhere, and it can’t all come from the upper half. Either we take from the bottom, or we shrink the amount everyone gets. Or some combination of both so it doesn’t hurt as much. I’m in favor of small cuts to the programs, and then enacting small taxes on the bottom half who don’t pay in right now. Oh, and you saying eating is a luxury? How many of the bottom half of the tax bracket smoke cigarettes? Pretty certain that’s not a necessity for life. And at around 7-10 bucks a pack, I think they can swing a bit for paying in for the benefits they enjoy.
Wraithkin about 12 years ago
Detriment. Ugh, typos
Wraithkin about 12 years ago
@ Heavy: You beat yourself at your own argument. Here’s why: You said I pay taxes and drive on the roads that I couldn’t possibly afford to pay for myself. You’re right. Does that mean, by your logic, that those who pay no taxes shouldn’t be permitted to drive on the roads? Or use other public services? It’s about contributing to the whole; those who pay no taxes do not contribute anything to the public good; the 53% who do pay taxes make up 100% of the other 47%‘s contributions. So when that 47% bemoans that they can’t afford to kick anything in, yet they go buy cigarettes, I have very little simpathy for the poor people who still can swing cash for those things not considered a necessity. They clearly can afford to pay some taxes on their income if they can afford to buy cigarettes or booze. I do understand that there are those people out there who flat out can’t afford even cigarettes, and those people I understand can’t truly afford taxes. But if you buy cigs or booze? Cough up your share buddy. It’s in this vein that I believe all income tax should be removed and instead have a national sales tax, with exemptions made for food and medicine. That way those who truly can’t afford to pay taxes don’t, and the rest of us who can, do. If you want to buy cigarettes, go for it. At least you’ll be paying into the pot when you do.I do agree that there should be no sacred cows when it comes to cuts. But we shouldn’t be cutting because of partisan belief structures, we should be cutting based on practicality and sustainability. For example: Defense can be cut to force efficiency in programs, but not to force troop size shrinkage (which diminishes our ability to wage war). Social Security should be cut not because we feel that people don’t deserve it, but because without proper cuts and reforms it will bankrupt itself. Medicare should be cut not because we feel there are those who don’t need it, but because without those cuts the system will collapse or explode our national debt. If we truly want these programs to be around when our kids are retiring, we need to make the hard choices and take some of this on our chins. After all, a parent’s job is to provide a better life for their children than they had themselves. This is the only way we can accomplish that.