Though provoking fiction before the election...

[optilady1]

The terms "dimocrat" and "Repugnant" are NOT helpful.

Thank you.

I can not pretend to be able to speak about politics on a public forum in an intelligent manner, nor do I have the depth of knowledge of certain folks here, but I love to read the posts. There are many who I agree with, many I don't, but I find myself so offended when folks flat out insult others who don't agree with them because they are labeled one party or the other.

In the end, the optical field has brought us to this particular site, and while I love the conversations that are off topic, no one here has to agree with other extra-curricular aspects of our lives. Being insulted for one point of view makes it very difficult to discuss optical issues in other threads.

[shanbaum]

Don't know the scale of problems such as this, but this happened with someone I worked with a few years ago.

Single parent, 3 kids, head of household, EIC, participated in several other government programs. Lived with her baby daddy (her term). Didn't get married because to do so would have raised their income to the point where she wouldn't have qualified for some of the government assistance.

These things can and do happen. The current administration wants people to become more and more dependent on the government. Look at the explosion of the number of people on food stamps. Obama wants us to become a nation of Julias, dependent on the government at every stage of our lives. That assures them of guaranteed votes.

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/

Gary, first of all,I know a lot of Democrats, and I don't know a single one who wants to promote dependency on government. That's absolute nonsense.

Now, Democrats, and Republicans (as discussed above), may both support programs that create perverse incentives. Of course that can happen. I don't believe that it means that ALL forms of government assistance, or regulation, are doomed to create perverse incentives. To the extent that they do, those programs or regulations should be changed. In some cases, it may be that we will choose to tolerate some amount of perversity in order to achieve some more important objective.

The link you posted is interesting. It's pretty crude, really, but I would be really interested if you would take it one slide at a time, and tell me which of those regulations or programs that are mentioned look to you as though they'll produce dependency or other kinds of adverse outcomes. Which ones do you think should be eliminated? I notice that none of them mention programs that generally get lumped into "welfare" (TANF, food stamps, housing assistance, unemployment). Would "Julia" really be a welfare junkie, if she took advantage of the programs and regulations mentioned?

[Wes]

Sheesh! What did I say?

I really wasn't trying to pounce on you. If anything, I was trying to find points on which I could agree with you. I may have a social justice agenda (not really sure, because I don't know what that means to you), but that doesn't mean we can't discuss things.

You're typing on a cellphone? Good job!

I came here for discussion, not to debate a professional debater. And thanks, it's a pain.

[shanbaum]

I came here for discussion, not to debate a professional debater. And thanks, it's a pain.

Hmm... can I put that on my resumé?

[Wes]

I'm pretty sure it's understood to be part of the J.D. curriculum.

[Wes]

One last: I apologise for my part in the repugnican/dimorcrat slur. While I find the leadership of both parties quite repugnant, there are several elected officials from both parties worthy of respect. Also, while I disagree with blindly supporting whatever party one chooses, I understand that both parties are comprised of mostly decent Americans. Now if only they'd wake up and realize that neither party has the average Joe's interests at heart...

[Wes]

http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Chi...lePartners.pdf

This looks interesting.

[mdeimler]

http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Chi...lePartners.pdf

This looks interesting.

Reminds me of the women who don't really know who is the father of their child.

[CoolOptician]

My other question would be "How many of you involved in this discussion have benefited from the Earned Income Credit, AFDC, Medicaid and/or received Food Stamps?" Ask yourselves what other taxpayer funded programs have helped you. GI Bill, Veterans Benefits, FAFSA, Pell Grants, Social Security Benefits for Survivors. Did these programs help or hurt?

Again, I think this 'discussion' is around the wrong campfire. (grin!) And somehow we get so attached to OUR side of the campfire, that we don't even want to get up and look at the other side, so we just keep picking up sticks to poke at others. Only eventually they are now 'crispy' on the end and burn.

Is it that all government programs are good? Or that they are all bad? That we should have none? Or should we have many to take care of everything that could possibly be a problem to a person? That we can be educated? Or that we cannot be? I don't think any of the people who are 'discussing' this here (I like that word, sounds so much better than arguing) believe that any of this is true in it's 'absolute' form. I think we all know of government programs that have been successful, and are productive and accomplish something (in my estimation Mike, the one your child benefits from), and we also know of programs or people who abuse the system (and far more than just a few unfortunately).

More important than whether programs should be in existence or not though, (to me) IS the mindset that the loss of those programs creates within people, and the belief system we develop that says we NEED this or our world will end. That we 'buy in' to the idea that one place is our 'answer' for the goods of our life, and if we don't get it, then we are in trouble. It disempowers us as human beings, when nothing we have now would be in existence if some humans in the past had not been empowered to think of possibilities and find a way to make them happen. As a species, EVERYWHERE, we have never lived in as good as circumstances as we do now. (Please note, I am not saying that there are not areas still in need or want of basic human conditions being improved. I AM saying that either what is being experienced now is better than centuries in the past, OR they have demolished what they had in the past.....by their arguing!) Having these comforts is a benefit, for sure.....but is it the long-term goal??

See, that's what I think this 'discussion' is really about. Between people who believe our monetary system offers the most freedom to live as each of us chooses (by providing for ourselves to whatever OUR values are, except in extreme circumstances when we cannot, and then having necessities provided) and by those who think that maybe our 'monetary system' needs to change, so that we all share the abundance together. Those with more giving so those with less can have.....and the level of that 'having' seems to be what the biggest argument in our country is about. In fact though, 'this sharing more equivalently idea' could quite possibly lead to a world where money is no longer even in existence. There are many movements on this earth with that exact philosophy, and moving towards 'gaining more believers.' There are many governments that are making choices and decisions that are 'de-valuing' money as a currency all over the place. Certainly 'printing money' when we need it does not create more value in it. What we're really talking about is changing our world entirely as we know it. Lol, and it has very little to do with 'religious beliefs' as much as we think, or whether someone eats fish on Friday. Or has Wednesday night open.

And that is where I think, all of our arguing/discussing comes from. The mindset that some like feeling in control of their world with a monetary system, and feel it slipping away. And the mindset of others who feel less empowered to provide, and want assistance. And yet, ALL of the arguing does not help at all. Thanks Wes, for the apology to the group. I like it when someone realizes they said something that was not helpful and owns it. You are right, we could use a LOT more of that kind of talk going on in our country.

The only reason I quoted you Judy, was solely to make the point that I am not responding with a bias as I don't really have a horse in the government programs issues. I actually have never benefitted from any of those programs. I also believe in my ability to care for myself. Maybe not in the style I would prefer, but I can do it. (There's about four things that I really wouldn't want to do without.) On the other hand, I don't begrudge others that do benefit from some of those programs as I am certain there are many people I love who probably have benefitted.

I think education will help some and not others, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Nothing will ever work perfectly, as we are imperfect beings. But I DO think we need to start looking where many choices we are making are going to take us 'long term.' And then decide where we want to end up at.....that would certainly help 'discussions' be more conducive to actually achieving something. In my opinion, I don't think Politics WILL achieve anything any time soon. (They ALL need an enema!) (smile) So looking to any of them for solutions is going to be disappointing. Which is why I keep 'dropping in' on discussions encouraging smart people to 'talk/don't yell' and reframe the way they look at things, so good/real discussions can take place. With possible brainstorming for different and unique solutions. Because I do believe it IS going to be US that actually comes up with solutions, and starts showing governments how to do it again. Sorta the way culture's started in the first place....."like-minded people coming together, finding solutions for problems." Yes, WE ARE going to have to BE the change we wish to see in the world.

Lol, now I'm sorry to 'drop in' on this scientific community and put in a whole bunch of sociological mumbo-jumbo, but it could be some interesting points to consider in your 'thinking time.' And I don't have a great book to recommend. I tend to rattle on, and almost write them, but don't have one that represents this mindset any way. And I just got a compliment for being concise earlier today. Totally busted that one now. Good day.

[Judy Canty]

Nicely said.

[gmc]

I suppose perspective is everything. What would you change in the "Julia" narrative?

Let's start with Head Start. It doesn't provide lasting benefits. From that bastion of conservatism, Time magazine. Democrats are supposed to be the party of choice. Let's give parents school choice. That'll never happen with the Dems being the party of teachers unions.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...081778,00.html

How about Obamacare. Premiums were going to go down, remember?

http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...re-unthinkable

And ten year costs were supposed to be less than a trillion dollars, right?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...de_648413.html

If you like your current insurance, you can keep it. Who could have predicted this?

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/05/...r-health-plan/

Julia enrolled in Head Start at age 3. When she retires at 67 in 43 years, we are apparently still under Obama's plan for Social Security. He appointed the Simpson Bowles commission to come up with a plan to shore up SS and Medicare and promptly ignored 100% of their recommendations. Do you really believe Social Security as we know it will exist in 2055?

[gmc]

Shanbaum, you saw people here take umbrage at the suggestion someone shouldn't have children they can't afford. Some clearly found that offensive. That's what I meant by harsh.

So you don't know anyone that wants people to be dependent on the government. Maybe you don't know President Barack Obama who described a majority coalition of welfare recipients and low income workers. Might that coalition vote to keep Dems in power? Would Dems be in favor of that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpL5xi9lJkU

[Judy Canty]

Let's start with Head Start. It doesn't provide lasting benefits. From that bastion of conservatism, Time magazine. Democrats are supposed to be the party of choice. Let's give parents school choice. That'll never happen with the Dems being the party of teachers unions.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...081778,00.html

How about Obamacare. Premiums were going to go down, remember?

http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...re-unthinkable

And ten year costs were supposed to be less than a trillion dollars, right?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...de_648413.html

If you like your current insurance, you can keep it. Who could have predicted this?

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/05/...r-health-plan/

Julia enrolled in Head Start at age 3. When she retires at 67 in 43 years, we are apparently still under Obama's plan for Social Security. He appointed the Simpson Bowles commission to come up with a plan to shore up SS and Medicare and promptly ignored 100% of their recommendations. Do you really believe Social Security as we know it will exist in 2055?

You might want to check the "hot links" in the various opinion pieces you cited, for context.
Do I believe that Social Security as we know it will exist in 2055? Of course not. It's not the same program that was introduced in 1935. But then, neither are Medicare, Medicaid, the GI Bill and any number of programs that have evolved to meet a changing populace.
Nothing is certain in this world but change, death and taxes.

[MasterCrafter]

How about Obamacare. Premiums were going to go down, remember?

We are going to be gifted with a healthcare plan that we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't, which reportedly covers ten million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for sixteen thousand new IRS agents,written by a committee whose chairman doesn't understand it, passed by congress, that didn't read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief,who didn't pay hos taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benifits take effect, by a government which has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and financed by a country that is broke.
So what the blank could possibly go wrong??

[gmc]

We are going to be gifted with a healthcare plan that we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't, which reportedly covers ten million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for sixteen thousand new IRS agents,written by a committee whose chairman doesn't understand it, passed by congress, that didn't read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief,who didn't pay hos taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benifits take effect, by a government which has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and financed by a country that is broke.
So what the blank could possibly go wrong??

Hey, don't blame Geithner for not paying his taxes, it was the fault of Turbotax!

[braheem24]

Let's assume 50% of the people receiving assistance (welfare) from the govt. are cases of fraud,
Lets assume the education dept needs to be cut in half,
Let's assume the big govt is bad and needs to be cut in half,

Using the chart below the total savings from the drastic changes above equates to 8% of the U.S. Budget, is the country now fixed?

[braheem24]

Why don't you people understand how our system works?

If you make an investment you have a huge risk of losing money. So of course you would want an investment tax lower than a payroll tax.

I've made an investment in my businesses everyday for the past 11 years, I've yet to pay 14.1%. Please explain to me how my investment is not risky

[braheem24]

Not at all. The 2.25% is an aggregate total as a percentage of all income earners in the bottome 50%. It's not spread out equally. In fact, many low wage earners pay no income tax at all and some even get a check from the government because they had children they cannot afford.

As do the 1% who are avg joe doctors/lawyers/small business owner who are lumped in with the multi-millionaires and billionaires who pay much less.

[Wes]

As do the 1% who are avg joe doctors/lawyers/small business owner who are lumped in with the multi-millionaires and billionaires who pay much less.

Isn't it true that while as a percentage of income, a Billionaire may pay less than a doctor, as a total it tends to be a few orders of magnitude larger?

[Judy Canty]

We are going to be gifted with a healthcare plan that we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't, which reportedly covers ten million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for sixteen thousand new IRS agents,written by a committee whose chairman doesn't understand it, passed by congress, that didn't read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief,who didn't pay hos taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benifits take effect, by a government which has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and financed by a country that is broke.
So what the blank could possibly go wrong??

What are your sources for these statements?

[Wes]

What are your sources for these statements?

Maybe it's this:

[MasterCrafter]

I've made an investment in my businesses everyday for the past 11 years, I've yet to pay 14.1%. Please explain to me how my investment is not risky

You didn't build that though... somebody else did... so you have to pay pay pay

Maybe it's this:

Wes wins

[Wes]

Hey, I didn't build that! And before it gets picked to death, I make no claims as to its veracity. I'm just sharing the meme thats floating around the net.

[Judy Canty]

Actually, I was hoping for some actual facts to back up the statement, not a win or a loss. Reacting emotionally feels good, but rarely accomplishes much.

[Wes]

I suspect a lot of it is hyperbole and exaggeration, but there is some truth in there. A country in debt 16 trillion could be considered broke. Obama smokes. The surgeon general is chubby. It doesn't apply to congress. It's debatable who it does apply to. Those it applies to that don't purchase insurance will get a small fine. Tim G. did have issues with his taxes. Medicare and SS are a mess, and that's on both parties. And it doesn't take effect for four years. As to whether it's a good plan or not, I don't understand it well enough to say. If you want more than that, start researching yourself or consult a law firm to analyze it.
It's been my experience here that when people start asking endless leading questions, they're not looking for answers, they're looking for attacking points.