Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Some people are just ignorant. That lady in the video you posted is proof.

"Obamaphones?" That's just crazy talk.

It should be noted that people who are on welfare or whatnot can actually apply for and get what is basically a "food stamp phone". One of the many fees that these cell phone companies tack on to us paying customer's bills pays for them.

I'm all for giving a hand to people who are struggling to get by and need a little help if they are working to make their life better. But I do understand that for every situation where programs like this can help a person, there's another person like that ignorant lady who just wants to take advantage of the system. We need to fix the system so it can still help people but it can't be taken advantage of, but this is a whole big issue which would need its own thread.

But yeah, it's not like Obama is going down to the DC AT&T store with the white house credit card and then standing on the street corner giving away phones for free on taxpayer money. This kind of crap happens on both sides of the aisle, where the President is blamed for things that go wrong even though he had nothing to do with it the same way he is sometimes given credit for things he had nothing to do with also.



Why are you asking him and not arn who posted the article and picture??

There's a huge difference in struggling to get by and refusing to accept responsibility for your own life. You dont need a phone to remain alive if you cant afford one too bad for you make better decisions. The sooner we cut off these leeches the better. At a minimum we need to assemble the welfare recipients every week to go do things like pick up trash around town to show thanks to those of us who get up early every day and go to work.
 
In those "best and happiest societies," which are progressive socialist countries, EVERYONE pays a higher tax. It's not just the rich people paying more in taxes. Even the middle class pays more. That's the tradeoff of having those services that those other countries enjoy.

An average middle class family that makes $100,000 a year is going to pay like 30% in taxes.

Guys like Mitt Romney and Donald Trump pay less than 15%.

The middle class already pays a higher percentage. About time we made it even.
 
Oh no, I don't have you pegged wrong. You're not a Republican who votes for Republican candidates.

It's all the branding. The Republican brand is in the dumpster so none of you want to admit that's what you are.

So let me guess, you think the liberal brand is so much better? The republican brand and the liberal brand are BOTH trash today. So once again, this is why I've voted for Ron Paul. If you can't understand that he's a constitutionalist and libertarian that is so far outside the stereotypical republican or democrat, and instead want to associate people with the letter that comes after their name, so be it. This is one reason why the country is broken today. So you can keep rooting for giant government, regulation, printing money that we don't have, and terrible fiscal policy overall if you really want to, but in the end it's not going to get us anywhere. I submit the current state of the nation as evidence.

Carry on.
 
An average middle class family that makes $100,000 a year is going to pay like 30% in taxes.

Guys like Mitt Romney and Donald Trump pay less than 15%.

The middle class already pays a higher percentage. About time we made it even.

As a libertarian, I actually agree with this. But why not let the middle class get this benefit instead of screwing the the rich? Why not tax earned and unearned income the same at 15%, or even 20%?

Do you realize how much a stimulus to the economy a 15/20% tax on the middle class would be? It would inject billions.

What is the liberal position on this?

Also, the fact is that a rich person like Mitt Romney actually paid $2M in income taxes in 2011. So he actually supported the federal government more than anyone here on this board. Why is everyone so concerned about what's "fair" and what's "right" or "even"?
 
The earlier article I posted supports my viewpoints. The more government gets its hands on policies that are "for the benefit of the country", the more you have people lining up with their hands out (food stamps, Obamacare, etc).

What happened to hard work? My late grandfather came to this country and dug holes for new train tracks that were under construction. He was worried he wouldn't get a green card, and he had to wait in line and get a sponsor in order to get into the country. He worked his tail off, eventually became a carpenter, earned a decent enough living, bought a house, raised a family, and that's why I can even sit here right now and type this message. I was given an opportunity, and I will work as hard as I can to make sure my ancestors' efforts weren't for nothing.

Ah yes..the good ol' days. Back when insurance companies could deny you, back when there were lifetime caps on your medical insurance. Nostalgia is a funny thing, but usually it takes longer for the rose colored glasses to be worn. :rolleyes:

Well the linked story did not have any picture from Obama's meeting with CEOs. Why the author chose a photo of the President with Rahm Emmanuel is unknown, unless he was making some kind of political statement.

I don't know why a picture of Rahm would be shown either, but the most recent "meeting" with CEOs (including Tim Cook) was done by phone, hence no picture of that.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/...eos-including-buffett-dimon-149886.html?hp=l6


Mitt shouldn't have said that 47% comment, and he did run an awful campaign by alienating himself from the all minorities that collectively isn't quite as miniscule a "minority" as it would sound like. Living proof of Mitt's bad campaign is that we got a president re-elected in the poorest of modern economic times, even when popular vote was close the electoral vote was a blowout. Even if Mitt won, I'd say with those numbers (100 lead in electoral, and neck-in-neck in popular vote), our democratic system needs serious, serious reform.

A margin of 4 million votes is now considered "neck-in-neck" or "close"??? Funny, I don't remember people saying that about George Bush when he won the 2004 elections with a 3.01 million-vote margin.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1163198/-Mitt-Romney-close-to-47-of-the-vote

Yes, someone who turned around a state economy, the winter olympics, and numerous companies is surely clueless about the economy. We'd be much better off with a career politician who has absolutely no leadership experience, never mind any economic experience.

Mitt will still be the best thing that could happen to the US in 2016, but I'm afraid that he probably won't be running again.

Really? You think he turned around that state's economy? Is that why they didn't want to vote for him again? You need to talk to people in that state and see if they think he turned things around. They do not agree with your assessment. And if you want to talk about numerous companies as some sort of success, how about looking at the numerous ones that failed. It wasn't all unicorns and rainbows. The Olympics, yes, he did good with. With some help from that evil big government.

And if you think that someone who has lied so much, someone that has such distain for half the country (because in light of his recent "gift" comments, clearly the "apology for the 47% comment was a lie itself), would be the best thing that could happen to the U.S., then that's pretty frightening. Even the Republicans who defended him throughout the campaign do not agree with you. They are scurrying like rats off a sinking ship to distance themselves from him.
 
The sooner we cut off these leeches the better. At a minimum we need to assemble the welfare recipients every week to go do things like pick up trash around town to show thanks to those of us who get up early every day and go to work.
Yes, let's make sure all those retirees, disabled Americans and working poor stop being such free loaders...:rolleyes:

2-10-12bud-f1.jpg
 
Also, the fact is that a rich person like Mitt Romney actually paid $2M in income taxes in 2011. So he actually supported the federal government more than anyone here on this board. Why is everyone so concerned about what's "fair" and what's "right" or "even"?

We don't live in the same world as the rich that promises hard work will always reap financial success. We don't even have the same job opportunities as them. The rules have changed.

Rich people like Romney change laws to stay rich. They are fighting to gain more wealth at the expense of everyone else, who are fighting to survive financially, pray they will one day own their own home, and perhaps miraculously pay for part of their kid's education. These goals are becoming increasingly more difficult to attain. Most have very few options to help them survive job loss or retirement, which keeps being delayed anyway.

30+% of $50,000 makes a bigger difference in your survival or happiness than 15% of multi-millions or billions.

It's the same with credit cards. The only people who receive good interest rates are the people who don't need them to begin with.

We like the idea of contributing equally to a system that usually benefits rich people more anyway.

As it is now, things are not equal or fair.
 
Last edited:
"When the people find they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic."

I think that sums up this recent election. What these business leaders have to say is irrelevant. Our course is already set, and they cannot stop where we are headed. Right now you are living the best times you are going to live for a while. All indications show that we are headed for hard times. Just follow where money and assets have been going the past year. It's really sad that we voted in a guy who got us more into debt and is responsible for a massive increase in the size of government that is going to cost everyone more money and place burdens on business. Were seeing the effect of Obamacare now.
My gosh, the righties just refuse to see their own folly.

Republicans are cocooned in a shell of lies, heads resting on a pillow of mendacity.

Every republican administration since Herbert Hoover has laid waste to the nation's economy, with the notable exception of Eisenhower.

George W. Bush left office with the worst recession since Hoover's Great Depression - and they voted for him twice! Yet these rightwing types continue to blame Obama for cleaning up their mess.
 
We don't live in the same world as the rich that promises hard work will always reap financial success. We don't even have the same job opportunities as them. The rules have changed.

Rich people like Romney change laws to stay rich. They are fighting to gain more wealth at the expense of everyone else, who are fighting to survive financially, pray they will one day own their own home, and perhaps miraculously pay for part of their kid's education. Most have very few options to help them survive job loss or retirement, which keeps being delayed anyway.

30+% of $50,000 makes a bigger difference in your survival or happiness than 15% of multi-millions or billions.

It's the same with credit cards. The only people who receive good interest rates are the people who don't need them to begin with.

We like the idea of contributing equally to a system that usually benefits rich people more anyway.

As it is now, things are not equal or fair.

I completely agree that things are not equal or fair from an opportunity perspective. The tax laws are a big part of it.

My question you didn't answer is why don't we simplify the system so there are no loopholes for the rich to hide from? Why not tax earned income the same as unearned income at 15 or 20%? Why do we have to raise the tax on the rich to what the middle class pay when we know if they can't fiddle with the tax system, they'll just take their money out of the country anyway?
 
I completely agree that things are not equal or fair from an opportunity perspective. The tax laws are a big part of it.

My question you didn't answer is why don't we simplify the system so there are no loopholes for the rich to hide from? Why not tax earned income the same as unearned income at 15 or 20%? Why do we have to raise the tax on the rich to what the middle class pay when we know if they can't fiddle with the tax system, they'll just take their money out of the country anyway?
I'm for the continuation of so-called tax loopholes.

What they represent is tax policy intended to accomplish certain goals. They are incentives: if you invest in certain activities, then you can pay a reduced tax on that income.

Unfortunately tax policy has been fashioned to reward the rich sending jobs overseas and investing there, instead of in the USA. And the result we see clearly - they have done just that. GE can invest overseas and pay $ZERO in taxes. Why? Because GE is evil? No, these companies are beholden to shareholders who demand the bottom line.

Obama wants to change the tax code so that it benefits America, not just the moneyed few who lobbied to get the tax code we have now.
 
There's a huge difference in struggling to get by and refusing to accept responsibility for your own life. You dont need a phone to remain alive if you cant afford one too bad for you make better decisions. The sooner we cut off these leeches the better. At a minimum we need to assemble the welfare recipients every week to go do things like pick up trash around town to show thanks to those of us who get up early every day and go to work.

It's a catch-22 though, because without any means to make their lives better, how are they going to?

You DO need a phone to get a job, so if you want to get people working and get them off welfare, you have to provide services like this.

That is unless you just want millions of people living on the streets of our cities in cardboard boxes and scrounging dumpsters for scraps to eat.
 
I completely agree that things are not equal or fair from an opportunity perspective. The tax laws are a big part of it.

My question you didn't answer is why don't we simplify the system so there are no loopholes for the rich to hide from? Why not tax earned income the same as unearned income at 15 or 20%? Why do we have to raise the tax on the rich to what the middle class pay when we know if they can't fiddle with the tax system, they'll just take their money out of the country anyway?

Good point! I agree! We should find a way to do that, but it won't be easy or come quickly.

Maybe if a bill's/law's goal is summarized into a few sentences, and the term "loophole" is written into it to define and include "any and all actions that seek to circumvent, avoid, offset, delay, or oppose the stated goals of the bill/law." Those that perform any such action would clearly be in violation of said bill/law, and would be subject to predefined penalties.

Though I know it's not as easy as that.
 
I'm for the continuation of so-called tax loopholes.

What they represent is tax policy intended to accomplish certain goals. They are incentives: if you invest in certain activities, then you can pay a reduced tax on that income.

Unfortunately tax policy has been fashioned to reward the rich sending jobs overseas and investing there, instead of in the USA. And the result we see clearly - they have done just that. GE can invest overseas and pay $ZERO in taxes. Why? Because GE is evil? No, these companies are beholden to shareholders who demand the bottom line.

Obama wants to change the tax code so that it benefits America, not just the moneyed few who lobbied to get the tax code we have now.

Looks like these tax expenditures go primarily to the rich.

I'll ask again, why not lower rates for the middle class so it's "fair"? That would benefit the middle class more than any kind of government jobs program.

A $100K family would get about $10000 a year in tax relief if we lowered the rate from 30% to 20%.
 

Attachments

  • Tax-Expenditures.jpg
    Tax-Expenditures.jpg
    44.2 KB · Views: 77
So basically, we have this as a recap:

- Those who are paid more are better at their jobs
- Money is the only motivating factor in life
- Millions of dollars a year is the only thing that a competent person should expect

I always find those types of people amusing. I could say I will give them $1 million dollars to kill themselves and they would do it. Perhaps I should, it would be nice to have a world where people give a damn.

All this sounds wonderful and brilliant, and obviously people aren't just motivated by money.

But then you look at the politicians and you see that they are basically all useless and/or beholden to other people.

You get what you pay for in todays world. If you pay a lame salary expect lame politicians.

It is not like Mitt Romney needs anymore money

What about the other 99.99% of the population who aren't as rich as Mitt Romney? Should they not be able to be president.
 
Because the people/corporations that have a disproportionate amount of influence in government like the loopholes?

So the solution is to give the governmore more money? So that lobbyists have more to play with?

Regardless of party affiliation, let's agree that the middle class will benefit if we have less government. On balance, the rich and very poor will suffer the most.

The more money you give to government to help the poor, the more money available to lobbyists to transfer some of that to the rich.

Whether its housing, healthcare, student loans, etc. some of that money goes to who needs it but much of it gets skimmed off to the cronies, lobbyists, CEOs, etc who would not benefit in a true free market system.
 
If you pay a lame salary expect lame politicians.

Many of them are paid very well, plus they are given bribes and benefits ALL the time. Clearly, none of this has motivated them to do a good job because they know they aren't accountable to anyone but themselves and their financial supporters, who also want them to stay there.

More money won't motivate someone who has no fear of losing their job or being held accountable for their actions.

They need to represent their constituency or lose their jobs, because that's what they were hired to do and swore in office to do.

What good is a promise to serve your people if you can't be fired for ignoring their wishes.

We need to fix the accountability issue before we even think about giving any of them more money. More money won't guarantee better results.
 
Many of them are paid very well,

Not to equivalent jobs they aren't.

plus they are given bribes and benefits ALL the time.

If people are underpaid then they are going to be susceptible to bribery.

Clearly, none of this has motivated them to do a good job because they know they aren't accountable to anyone but themselves and their financial supporters,

So why not make us their financial supporters?

They need to represent their constituency or lose their jobs, because that's what they were hired to do and swore in office to do.

If you pay them properly, and therefore get more candidates surely then they'd be better motivated to do the right thing?
 
If you pay them properly, and therefore get more candidates surely then they'd be better motivated to do the right thing?

Power and influence after they leave office is much more valuable than any salary you could pay them while they're in office.
 
Read: "Obama meets with Tim Cook and other CEOs to get advice on the critical state of this country, because Obama has no idea what he's doing."

Obama is such a joke. I still can't believe how ignorant our nation is as a whole to have elected him to a second term.

I couldn't agree with you anymore. Well said.
 
Not to equivalent jobs they aren't.



If people are underpaid then they are going to be susceptible to bribery.



So why not make us their financial supporters?



If you pay them properly, and therefore get more candidates surely then they'd be better motivated to do the right thing?

Clearly, you aren't talking about the same "politicians" I am!

None of those things has anything to do with accountability to ensure the job is done well, or to prevent the wrong person from sitting in office for several years after they fail to deliver on their promises.

Would you pay a bad employee well for several years or hope that more money gives them a change of heart as they continue accepting bribes. You would probably find a new employee first, see how well they do, then see how much money motivates them after they do a good job and their probationary period ends. But politics is still very different than standard corporate jobs, (ie: accountability to those you were hired to work for, such as voters)
 
Last edited:
or to prevent the wrong person from sitting in office for several years after they fail to deliver on their promises.

But political decisions aren't always immediately popular, so that's how it has to work.

Would you pay a bad employee well for several years or hope that more money gives them a change of heart as they continue accepting bribes.

No, I'd fire them. But you aren't going to get a good replacement if you offer a poor salary.

But politics is still very different than standard corporate jobs, (ie: accountability to those you were hired to work for, such as voters)

Yeah, its probably higher risk, and so really the reward needs to be higher.
 
Power and influence after they leave office is much more valuable than any salary you could pay them while they're in office.

The "power and influence" they get after leaving office requires them to cozy up to big business in office.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.