What is Priority #1?
In my ongoing effort to keep things positive (no sense in getting down on the guy before he's even done anything yet), I'm putting out a question to everyone. Rather than put this in as a poll, I'm just going to ask it free-form because I doubt I'll cover all of the possible answers
( Read more... )
Hey I find the volunteer idea pretty intriguing, but I have a couple of questions about some "conservative perspectives" that have emerged in the last couple of days. I feel like I'm missing something.
First and foremost, I don't understand how tax breaks for lower income people are equivalent to "handing out checks" to them? They earned that money by working hard for it; don't they have a right to keep more of it just like the wealthy had a right to keep more of their cash when Bush gave tax breaks to the wealthy? I mean, if you want to split hairs, tax-cuts on dividends (not that I'm against them; I got money in the market) *philosophically* seems like tax cuts on money that people DIDN'T work for - I mean, it grew on it's own more or less.
At any rate, I'm not really sure how those wealthy corporations plan to stay alive if people can't afford their products. "Trickle up" even makes more sense to me based on a Free Market philosophy - rather than "checks being handed out" to politician's friends directly from government tax breaks, if the money is in the hands of the people, they can CHOOSE which corporations provide services of the most value directly, no?
Also, tax-cuts on the middle class seems like it would contribute to a pairing down on a lot of "big government hand-out" programs - welfare/workfare/housing help/health-insurance, etc., because if people are allowed to keep more of their money, then they can make their mortgages/rent and pay for their health care, and get some savings to carry them through when they get laid off, so they don't need as much help in those areas, right? So, *in theory* it seems like those kinds of tax cuts may save the gov't some money by allowing them to pair down those programs.
And the paid volunteer idea sounds great, but I'm not really sure how that would be different from - well, working at a job.
Does the word "volunteer" imply they'd be doing this kind of work in addition to their other low-paying job? Where would someone with a minimum wage job get the time to do this?
In a related note, where did the perception that people with lower paying jobs "working as hard as the rich" come from? Wouldn't someone making something like $18,000-$40,000 a year HAVE to work harder to pay whatever bills they have? It's not like that's those are the kind of wages where you can just kick back and say "oh, I'll take these 5 hours off to build roads." (Obviously, if it's more than they're making already, they can do that - but then isn't it just a job?).
If someone wants to claim that, oh America is a land of opportunity, you can make as much as you want, I can attest as a someone who's seen people with great education and opportunities NOT succeed and "become rich" (ie, $250,000), not because they didn't work hard, but because ... well, I'm not really sure. (Note: I know I don't really apply; I'm an artist, and well, I have other issues going on.)
Anyway, for low-income earners who DO have that kind of time (students, artists (lol)), I think it's a GREAT idea.
You can guess my #1 priority is (haha):
1) Tax-cuts for the middle class.
2) I'm torn between health care and energy independence. I think I'd have to agree on energy independence because it seems to me that "green-collar/infrastructure jobs" would, as you say, not only stimulate the economy but fortify our borders, etc.
3) Health care.
Reply
Reply
Tax cuts for the middle class are fine. It's the so-called tax cuts for people who already aren't paying income taxes that I have a problem with. There has to be SOME other way to help the unfortunate - improving education so they can more readily help themselves seems like a good way, assuming anyone can figure out how.
"And the paid volunteer idea sounds great, but I'm not really sure how that would be different from - well, working at a job."
I suppose it is an extra job, but it should pay more than minimum wage so people have an incentive to devote their time to it, and unlike a standard job, people should be able to fit it in wherever their schedule allows. I'm not really firm on this idea, it's something that just occurred to me this morning.
I don't know where the perception of rich people working harder than poor people came from either, since I don't subscribe to that belief. There are rich people and poor people who work hard and those of both types who don't. It takes more than hard work to become rich; you have to be disciplined as well. If we ARE going to give money to people (and that includes all of those silly stimulus checks the government keeps sending out), it ought to be mandatory that it be used to pay off debt before buying an iPod.
Reply
... and buh, what is this about handing out more money to people who didn't get money in the first place? THIS I did not hear about on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NPR or in TIME. I don't recall reading this on neither Obama's site or McCain's site. wtf.
I'm not an economy expert, but I've been watching news 24/7 the last six months to do my research. :/ I've listened to several different case-by-case comparisons of who in what bracket would pay how much, and no one mentioned the "you who already keep all your money get to keep more" bracket.
Reply
Leave a comment