If only we could figure out where this misinformation is coming from. I learned from the liberal mainstream media that there is an equivalence, so at least it isn't one sided. Thirty years of hearing that the government isn't successful at anything has taken its toll. I have successfully made some converts to rational thinking, and it feels good. They need not believe all that I believe, but if they can look at a spreadsheet that disproves what they thought, and they see the light, it is a glorious thing to behold. What is really fun is to hang around a group that starts to go off about "redistribution of wealth" and you chime in with "Yea, those rich guys are taking the bread right out of our mouths", or something to that effect. Anyway, good post.

A misinformation source? Can you spell Murdock?

Sorry, man. If you make a huge mistake with your investments and end up destitute and unable to work in your old age, we won't let you become a homeless man.

Oh yeah, that costs something.

According to Barack Obama's comments last week, you won't have the money to take care of me, so I better be ready to take care of myself. The money they've taken out of my paycheck for all these years has apparantly been blown if he isn't able to send out Social Security checks next month. So let me have it and I won't blow it.

Social security isn't the problem.. We don't blow past the reserves for more than 2 decades... but by then the baby boomers will die out.

Social security is NOT an urgent issue right now.

Defense spending, Yes.

Medical costs, Yes.

Social Security: Not even close.

Well you may have to speak to Barack about that, not me. He's the one that said he may not be able to send out Social Security checks next month, not me. I would hope he knows more about the state of US fiscal stability than you and I, wouldn't you?

Yeah, that's a good point. He may be evoking that to eschew fear and score political points.

But then again, it's not a reserves issue, it's a cash flow issue. Other parts of government owe SS money. If there isn't cash to write the checks, they don't go out, which is the debate we are having.

I would indeed assume that he knows better than either of us, but i'd also assume that he as all other politicians are doing what they can to accumulate as much political capital as possible.

They have to go to a county office to get it, so I assume the county......an easy mistake if you never pay attention to anything deeper than American Idol.

People have always been stupid. Currently, they are stupid and also mislead by the greedy. They are victims as much as anyone. The reasonably intelligent, but ignorant are the ones who piss me off.

Agreed. Speaking of the ignorant, (or in this case, rich and ignorant) I remember seeing a video clip a few years back of Hannity talking to Craig T. Nelson. Nelson told Hannity "I had to pull myself up by the bootstraps and use food stamps" Hey bright boy, food stamps ARE a government social program!

Tax breaks are a social program if I'm funding it during one the lowest tax rate periods in recent history. Why am I subsidizing tax deductions for people with multiple homes, annual incomes over 200k, and income generated purely by investments? To protect these programs because they are tax breaks while sticking it to the poorest Americans is obscene.

I don't really see much in this post that makes sense. The mortgage deduction is a bit of social engineering to help people afford to buy a house. If you rent, and have the same income, you will not get the deduction. It is an incentive, and the amount of your taxes has nothing to do with the amount of the deduction. The deduction is based on the interest paid to a bank, not relative to the government
. I don't understand the fourth paragraph at all.
In the last paragraph I have to wonder. Where is the author hearing rhetoric about all income owned by the government etc? I have listened to the "liberal" mainstream media, and the actual liberal commentators all my life, and have never heard any such discussion. I would also suggest that all social programs require some means of funding, or passing the benefit to the citizen; one way to do that is with a tax break. Tax credits, vouchers, and benefit payments or services are others. Vouchers are the only means that is counterproductive; they always seem to create a business model that takes the most of them, and returns the least.

I work and pay taxes. I get some of my money back in April because I intentionally overpay my taxes (I never want to owe something I can't pay). The government keeps a big chunk of my paycheck every two weeks and in turn use my money (and the tax dollars of every other tax-paying American) to give money to people who aren't working - some who can't find work because of the recession and some who choose not to work because they know that someone else will pay their bills. That is a social program. There is a place for helping people get back on their feet, but far too many people make taking handouts from social programs a lifestyle choice.

In 2010, we spent 56.74% on social programs (social security, unemployment/welfare, medicare, medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Programs, ranked in order of percentage of spending). For comparison purposes, defense spending made up 18.74% of our federal budget. (SOURCE: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf) Now I will agree with you that we spend too much on defense, but that amount pales in comparison to the amount of money we are giving to people to do nothing. Don't even get me started on farm subsidies (I know, Republicans tend to love these, but I'm not a Republican)...

My point is that tax deductions aren't social welfare. The government returning money to me that I earned through hard work is in no way comparable to the government giving money to someone who contributes nothing into the system, and in some cases leaches off of it for years.

By the way, how are you "funding" tax breaks? Those people you described already pay more in taxes (not just in dollars, but also as a percentage of their income) than you do and more than I do. Maintaining tax rates doesn't require someone to fund it. Unless some silly politicians try to spend money that we don't have...

"Now I will agree with you that we spend too much on defense, but that amount pales in comparison to the amount of money we are giving to people to do nothing."

I completely disagree. The waste in defense could probably cover many social programs.

"Those people you described already pay more in taxes (not just in dollars, but also as a percentage of their income) than you do and more than I do."

Yes because they are making way more than you or I do and keep a greater percentage of it through tax breaks. For example, why should social security tax be based only on the first 116k of income? We have far more people making way more than that. The system is based on being able to afford tax breaks. Once you get past 200k of annual income and pay a decent accountant, you make the unmotivated unemployment recipient look like a petty crook in comparison.
As for paying people for doing nothing. I do not assume most people like and want to stay on unemployment. The unemployment levels are companies not hiring and eliminating jobs. Not because people do not want to work. Are companies complaining because they can't find people or are they just not creating jobs? If the latter, then can we have the 2+ trillion dollars of federal money back? In the past three years our tax money has gone back into the economy as spending incentives. Businesses have posted record profits while increasing efficiency. That is profit not jobs. You should be more outraged that your tax money has gone into a corporate black hole.

I think our fundamental difference is that you believe all the money you make should go to you and it is up to you to decide how to distribute it, if at all.

I believe there is overhead for living in a large, educated, and civilized country. People do not understand or, in some cases care, what the cost is to maintain a society of our level. The ones that object are the ones that are making the most and profiting during a bad economy.

You seem much more frustrated with the people on the lower end who benefit from social programs. I have a hard time believing that those who only control about 5% of the wealth in this country are more responsible for our government debt than the 1 in 5 Americans those who control 50%.

Couple of points I would like to make regarding your last post.

Poor people pay tax on unemployment. They also pay state tax, payroll tax and government fees even if they do get back federal income tax.
Rich people collect unemployment, Social Security, and Medicare.
Defense spending would not cover Medicare and Social Security but I was referring to programs like single mother nutrition programs and unemployment.
Last item, I've watched tax accountants in action. The wealthy pay no where near the tax rate they are suppose to. Some pay nothing at all.

I will agree with your first point. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree with the whole thing, although I have enjoyed our discourse, which has remained fairly civil :)

I understand that there are costs to maintain a country like ours, but I also believe that the government wastes far too much money on everything it touches. The bureaucracy is entirely inefficient. Because the biggest slice of the pie is social programs, that's unfortunately going to be where the largest amount of waste is.

For example, the most recent estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) indicate that there was nearly $48 billion in improper payments for Medicare and $22.5 billion in the federal share of improper payments in Medicaid in fiscal year 2010. These figures are just the tip of the iceberg and do not include the countless, undocumented occurrences of theft carried out by organized crime rings aimed at defrauding Medicare, the stealing and selling of beneficiary numbers on the black market, and the creation of front groups and fake doctors’ offices that cheat the system at the taxpayers’ expense. (SOURCE: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11409t.pdf)

I suppose I seem more frustrated with people on the lower end, as you say, because I am one of the 53% of Americans who still has to pay her taxes and I am buying groceries, doctor visits, cell phones, designer shoes, cigarettes, beer, TVs, and sometimes even rent for both my family and the recipients of social services. I feel as if my family and I are scraping by at times and it's frustrating to know I could just as easily being doing so at someone else's expense. Let me reiterate, I am not opposed to helping the recently unemployed get back on their feet - there is a place for that. I am opposed to helping people who have chosen to make a lifestyle living off of the government (and thus, taxpayers). I am opposed to working so hard to provide a comfortable life for people who have made poor choices with regards to their education or addictions. There is a place for private charities to help these people, by my purse isn't a charity and there isn't much money in it right now anyway. But regardless of how much money I have as an individual, I don't think it's the taxpayers' responsibility to correct for the poor choices of many of these people.

"I have a hard time believing that those who only control about 5% of the wealth in this country are more responsible for our government debt than the 1 in 5 Americans those who control 50%." It may seem hard to believe, but that's why I gave you statistics that were backed up with sources. Those social programs overwhelmingly make up the majority of government spending (56.74%). Only half of Americans pay into the government's pockets, so we've created a system where half of the country benefits from programs that the other half funds. The "top" 53% (which includes middle class Americans) ends up carrying the bottom 47% of Americans on our backs, and that is tiring. Social welfare is what over half of every dollar the government withholds from my paycheck goes toward.

Welfare recipients are still able to receive tax refunds for taxes withheld from their welfare checks, so most still won't pay federal income taxes (except for the ones who earned income from other sources, ie got a new job). I've avoided a discussion of state-level taxes because they're so different from state to state. I live in Texas, where we have no state income tax (and surprisingly, or perhaps not so much, is responsible for 48% of all jobs in the country created during the recession SOURCE: http://europeancourier.org/test/2011/06/18/48-of-post-recession-jobs-were-create...). The Texas state sales and use tax rate is 6.25%, but local taxing jurisdictions (cities, counties, special purpose districts, and transit authorities) may also impose sales and use tax up to 2% for a total maximum combined rate of 8.25% (Where I live, it's 8.25%). I like not having to pay taxes on my income twice and I like having a sales tax because everyone contributes to it. If you spend more, you pay more, so this usually ends up being somewhat progressive because the more money you have, the more you tend to spend. It's important to note that in Texas medicine and groceries are exempt from all sales taxes, so it won't put and undue burden on the truly needy.

I can't speak for other states, but I know that some state tax structures are not as progressive as federal taxes, but it will still follow the same general trend - more money = more taxes.

"The wealthy pay no where near the tax rate they are suppose to. Some pay nothing at all." I gave you data and sources for this in my previous post, but I will restate it. The effective tax rates provided by the CBO were broken down into quintiles with the top earning quintile paying 25.8% in federal income taxes *after* all deductions (because these are effective tax rates). But these deductions benefited the entire population, so while the wealthy paid less than the statutory rate, so did everyone else - deductions did not disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

The remaining four quintiles from top to bottom paid 17.6%, 14.2%, 10.2%, and 4.3%, respectively. Within the top qunitile, the percentage of taxes paid increased with income, with the top 10% paying 27.6%, the top 5% paying 29.2%, and the top 1% paying 31.6% of their incomes in taxes. These numbers are noticeably higher than any of the rates paid by the aforementioned groups. That's just the nature of the progressive tax structure. Here is the raw data from the CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdf

For reference purposes that top statutory tax rate is 35%, which is greater than the 31.6% paid by the top 1% of earners, so deductions appear to have benefited the wealthy as well, but no so much as to result in these people paying no taxes at all. I don't know what happens on the state level, but they contribute the biggest piece of the pie to the federal government.

Perhaps people should start looking at their taxpayer supported services in a different light then?

It's a social program because it takes other people's money and reimburses you for a private expense.

The tax code is not a social program. I can understand where a lefty might perceive it to be. I even understand why a lefty would believe it to be. But it isn't. Besides, like I previously stated the interest deduction was created to promote business not for the benefit of the consumer. The interest deduction has been around almost since the beginning of the tax code.

No that's wrong it's not commie any more we're now all "Socialists"! Whatever that is?

I was trying to create a mock dialogue, I was not going for actual accurate terms and/or meanings but only intended to make fun of how some people view things.

You know it!

That's how it is going to be very, very soon. Let's see how those rough and tumble GOPtards handle it.

Agreed!

Ditto!

Wonderful! Wish I had said this!

I don't know if you could have asked a more open ended question. Let's revisit your question as Bachmann wins primaries.

It is only the bottom end of the curve, but a very vocal part. But unfortunately as Voltaire and Einstein observed the depth of that curve knows no bounds.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" ...Albert Einstein

“The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by Infinity is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity.” ..Voltaire

ROTF, LMAO

I would say that answers Mark's question.

I love this picture -- not only is this poor twit ignorant, ?s/he? is dumber than a box of rocks b/c medicaid is spelled the way I spelled it. S'pose 'govment' is supposed to be funny, they ran out of room to spell it right, or they honestly think that's the way govERNment is spelled :-)???

nutshell without a pea

Me too,don't feel bad ,think of it as an opportunity to do things like participate or learn things after all thats what safety nets are for.Keep swinging at ms sometimes you rattle em a good one.

My husband is on VA and SS disability b/c he DESERVES it -- he went to Vietnam and now has diabetes/ kidney failure and heart failure -- just got a pacemaker 6 weeks ago, and started dialysis abt a month ago. Our first son died of cancer 2 days after he was born (10 mos after my husband got home from Nam) so I figure I deserve the money that the gov't is paying Mike too. As both you and hurleyburley said: we too, are thankful that we live in a country that has this safety net and we all DESERVE it!

Power to the Peons NOW!

Right on...

My bro had MS. My heart goes out to you!

thanx..it's a dirty rotten sneaky disease..all warm thoughts appreciated.

My taxes pay ( yes contrary to the propaganda liberals do pay taxes) for some of your disability and I am happy to do so! And no note needed.