Heck, in East Texas people fight over minimum wage jobs. Is that due to the number of illegals? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:12 PM Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for
> Thank you so much, Kevin. I can't stand it when people pull that "people > shouldn't have kids they can't afford" crap. I heard it a hell of a lot > when my kids were little. Well gee, when the kids were born we owned a > house and had a household income of maybe 75k. You seriously wanna tell me > that that's not enough to have two kids? Do you want to know what the state > of Maryland considered adequate child support for a baby and a 2yo? Three > hundred dollars a month, not even enough for one week's daycare. I got it > back into court and it's now a reasonable level (about 23k a year) but I > had to represent myself and Court officials -- child support enforcement > officials -- in Montgomery County pretty much told me they thought I was a > real bitch to pursue the guy. And it took four years. This, mind you, is > simply what the child support guidelines call for. Tell me again about how > fair the system is, Tim, I freaking dare you. > > And yeah, there are people here who have three kids and work minimum wage. > Do I know any personally? Um, no. I don't live on that side of town. They > are there though and gee if they are working three jobs to support their > kids exactly when do you expect them to go to school? Heck, in East Texas > people fight over minimum wage jobs. > > It's fine to get all sanctimonious about how people should go to school. > Sometimes education doesn't make a difference, Tim. And when it does, when > someone with no skills has a child, they have enough to worry about without > paying taxes for the rich. > > Because we aren't talking about welfare here or who should pay for the kid. > I'm talking about people who work and raise their own kids. All am saying > is why is it ok to tax this guy and why am I supposed to feel sorry for > some guy making a hundred thou??? > > Ok. I am off my soapbox now. > > Dana > > Kevin Graeme writes: > > > LOL! Bwahahahahaha! My turn to call BS! You actually believe that crap? > > > > Foodservice, construction, social services, teachers, the list can go on > > and on of people who are very hardworking and have a high "productive" > > level, but will _never_ be rich. My mother was a teacher who ended up > > divorced and supporting two kids and a house. I can distinctly remember > > going out shopping and while we were sitting outside the store she said > > to me, "I want you too look at this number in my checkbook. That's it." > > The balance in the checkbook was $11. > > > > Heck, most of the service industry is made up of the hardest working > > people you will ever meet and they're the working poor. > > > > Now if by productive, you mean people who maneuver themselves into a > > position that they benefit while others work, then sure. Yeah. That's > > what the system favors. > > > > But hey, I'm a white-collar tech worker that is firmly in the > > middle-income bracket. > > > > -Kevin > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:36 AM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > > It favors the porductive. > > > > > > Tim Heald MCP/CCFD > > > Information Systems Specialist > > > Overseas Security Advisory Council > > > U.S. Department of State > > > (202) 663-0130 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Kevin Graeme [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 10:19 AM > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > Subject: RE: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > I agree that many, many people have kids that can't financially > > > > support them by generally accepted "modern" standards. > > > However, shit > > > > happens and many people already with kids get put into a > > > position of > > > > financial stress. Divorce, death, tornado, whatever. > > > > > > > > No people aren't "trapped" in the sense of jackbooted thugs > > > are going > > > > to kick in your door if you make more than a certain > > > amount. However, > > > > as Dana very succinctly pointed out, the system is designed to keep > > > > poor people paying a higher percentage of their income > > > towards taxes > > > > and thus keep them poor. > > > > > > > > I don't know what a good solution is, but it's undeniable that the > > > > system favors the rich. > > > > > > > > -Kevin > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 6:59 AM > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > Subject: RE: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank god that guy is there so that I can do as well as I do. > > > > > Seriously. Lets stop pretending that we don't have different > > > > > classes in the US, or that a lower class isn't a necessary > > > > > evil. The thing about the U.S. that makes it better than > > > > > other times and places is that you are not TRAPPED in your > > > > > class. Through hard work, education, and sometimes luck, you > > > > > can change your class. > > > > > > > > > > BTW do you really know someone with 3 kids who makes $5.50? > > > > > Do you really think we should have to assist him because he > > > > > was irresponsible, bringing life into the world he can't afford? > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Dana Tierney [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 6:05 PM > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > > > > > it would be legislated like anything else. Before you fall over > > > > > > laughing, remember I stipulated at the beginning of the > > > discussion > > > > > > that none of this was goign to happen due to the power > > > of the AARP > > > > > > voting bloc. I also think there is something slightly > > > > > perverted about > > > > > > a society where we can seriously talk about those poor > > > > > people living > > > > > > paycheck to paycheck on 100,000 a year, but poo poo the > > > > > need of some > > > > > > guy with three kids and 5.50 an hour. Let's see, if he > > > > > works 40 hours > > > > > > a week 52 weeks a year that's 11,440. I do believe this guy > > > > > benefits > > > > > > very little from the Bush tax cut since the increase in the > > > > > child tax > > > > > > credit is based on income over $10,000. And unlike me he > > > > > doesnt have > > > > > > the option of refiling his taxes to use fewer deductions, > > > > > thats just > > > > > > what he makes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kevin Schmidt writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > So who would get to decide the means? A poor person would > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > assume > > > > > > the > > > > > > > rich have too much and the rich wouldn't know what is > > > > > needed to get > > > > > > > by. Getting by all depends on how you live. I know > > > > > people that make > > > > > > $100,000 a > > > > > > > year and are paycheck to paycheck and I know peopl e > > > > > making $50,000 > > > > > > > that > > > > > > are > > > > > > > doing quite well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:07 PM > > > > > > > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, first of all, such a measure has no hope of > > > passage. To > > > > > > > > discuss > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > hypothetical however, I would be in favor of just about > > > > > any means > > > > > > > > test > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > long as there *was* one. I just don't think it is > > > > > right to take > > > > > > > > money > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > people who are struggling for survival and give it to > > > > > people who > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > it. To stop doing this would not be punishing the rich > > > > > for being > > > > > > > > rich, > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > would just be *not* giving them money they don't > > > need. While > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > are at > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > maybe we could reform the structure of the tax, and > > > > > maybe drop the > > > > > > > > retirement age so a black man an actual chance of > > > > > benefiting from > > > > > > > > the system he is paying into. Do you honestly think the > > > > > poor slob > > > > > > > > working > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > the minumum wage needs his money less than Bill Gates? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beyond all that though is the fact that the system > > > is gonna go > > > > > > bankrupt if > > > > > > > > it continues as is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nick McClure writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $100,000 doesn't go as far as sounds like. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My point is that government can not adequately > > > > > determine what a > > > > > > person > > > > > > > > > needs, it isn't the same on every state or city. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What a person needs to survive in Lexington KY, is much > > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > than > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > a person needs in New York City. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So do you have a cost of living scale for each city? > > > > > This type > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > system > > > > > > > > > would punish the rich for being rich, which is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 2:29 PM > > > > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd agree with you if I thought everyone would > > > get their > > > > > > > > > > 8k. > > > > > > Maybe. > > > > > > > But > > > > > > > > > > since we all know it isn't going to work out > > > that way, why > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > poor > > > > > > > > > > people subsidize the affluent white elderly? The current > > > > > > > > > > system is > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > grotesque. If you are going to cut, cut where it wont > > > > > > > > > > hurt, > > > > > > > > > > geez. > > > > > > As > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > need, that is to be determined. I proposed a cutoff > > > > > of 100,000 > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > be anywhere; that is just my perception of > > > where 8k doesnt > > > > > > > > > > matter > > > > > > too > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > > > any more. The point is there should be SOME > > > point where it > > > > > > > > > > cuts > > > > > > off. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nick McClure writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you determine if a person needs the money > > > > > before you send > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > back > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > them? What gives the government the right to > > > decide that > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > person > > > > > > > > > > needs > > > > > > > > > > > the money or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the person gets the 8K check, then goes > > > and spends it > > > > > > > > > > > buying > > > > > > > stuff, > > > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > > hasn't that done more for the economy than the > > > > > > > > > > > government > > > > > > keeping > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > money? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sense is, that the 8k is that person's money, > > > > > not matter > > > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > > > money > > > > > > > > > > > they have, it is still there money. We must tax people > > > > > > > > > > > equally, > > > > > > I > > > > > > > almost > > > > > > > > > > > have a problem having a staggered tax bracket. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 2:07 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could > > > have paid for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my point is I fail to see the sense in sending > > > > > checks for > > > > > > what, 8k > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > year, > > > > > > > > > > > > to multi-millionaires. Sure a means test would be > > > > > > > > > > > > bureaucracy, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > saves money would't it be a necessary evil? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Heald, Tim writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I advocate not giving out any money. No > > > > > problems with a > > > > > > budget > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > budget is $0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Dana Tierney [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 7:51 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could > > > > > have paid for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what, you advocate indiscrimiately handing > > > > > out money? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That > > > > > > > helps > > > > > > > > > > > > balance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the budget, fer sure.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 30 May 2003 07:21:50 -0400, Heald, Tim > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A means test? From a small > > > government advocate? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sometimes................ Nevermind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> From: Dana Tierney [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:34 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could > > > > > have paid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> yep. I can I can. It's not that I > > > > > begrudge people > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> their > > > > > > > > > > pensions, > > > > > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that hey I was paying this when I was > > > > > driving a cab > > > > > > gettign > > > > > > > > > > robbed > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> living in DC to feed my kids and people > > > > > with many > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> times > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > income > > > > > > > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> saying hey we paid in so we are > > > > > entitled. I paid in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> too > > > > > > and > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > doubt > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ever see mine. Personally I think social > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> security > > > > > > pensions > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> means test. Maybe $100 000 a year and below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 29 May 2003 14:52:14 -0500, > > > Doug White > > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > | > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > | Also, we could make Social Security a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > | progessive > > > > > > not a > > > > > > > > > > > > regressive > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> tax. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > But > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > | that would end the subsidy of > > > the affluent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > | elderly > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > politically > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > | never happen as those people vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > | > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > | Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > | > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > I paid in to SS (and with employer match) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > > beginning, > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > now am > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > reaping the so-called benefits. > > > Thankfully, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > there > > > > > > are a > > > > > > > > > > couple > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > retirement pensions, and investments > > > > > to help out, > > > > > > plus I > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> working, in a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > way, that is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > You Betcha we do <grin> and likewise > > > > > support a very > > > > > > > active > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> effective > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > lobby, as well. Can you spell AARP? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
