Outsourcing For Idiots

[KCFlyer]

Ok. So Sprint had different motives. My point still remains that if you don't like the way a company does business, don't use them. Don't go complain that the president should have done something to stop them from making that business descision.

What they did ended up costing them business. Hopefully, other companies will lear from that and not do the same thing. But I still say that is it not the government's place to step into that situation in any way shape or form.
I had one of the worst experiences on an airline. I have since refused to fly that airline. My choice. I would rather pay more to another air line than fly that one again. I didn't go complain to the FAA about it. I blamed the airline for their behaviour, not somebody in government.

[post="197122"][/post]​

Fred....here's what your missing...AA-MCI's wife was making a pretty good wage. That translated into federal, state, and local tax income. That job goes to India. They don't pay taxes to the US government, the state of Missouri, or the city of Kansas City over there. Jobs in KC are fairly hard to come by (good jobs anyways), so if she takes another job that pays less....there is less income to the federal, state, and local governments. That impacts communities...Bush's tax cuts come at a cost. Without federal funds to assist local governments, the burden falls to the states. With reduced tax revenues (not because of tax cuts, but because the jobs replacing the lost jobs aren't paying as much) come reduced services. Bushie talks about "no child left behind", but these job cuts leave lots of kids behind....funding for schools comes mostly from the state and local level. States are trying to balance little things like police and fire protection with improving schools. And they try to lure business to their community in hopes of improving the economy....and the carrot that they use is....corporate tax breaks. This on top of the plethora of federal tax breaks for corporations.

In the end - the schools lose. But what they hell...those are only future generations...they need to learn to suck it up and be men about it...public schools are nothing more than the training grounds for future liberals, right? No sense in government funding that....just tell the schools to prep the kids for one test, give them a week to go over what's on the test, then call the results "proof" that no child left behind works. Shoot, maybe they can hold "teleclasses" from Bangalore for our kids. Just think of the savings. Nobody owes the parents a job, and nobody owes the kids an education, right?

Everybody talks about the "improving" economy, yet in the past two weeks, Sprint announced 700 jobs cuts one week, and 300 more job cuts the next week. That's a thousand jobs on top of the 20,000 jobs they eliminated or sent offshore. The "reward" to the economy? Well, Sprint's stock is up. The stock price doesn't put taxes into the system. The stock price doesn't pay mortgages, put food on tables, or pay for health care. But the stock price looks great for investors, who usually have more brains than to risk more than they are willing to lose in the stock market...in other words, the money they put in there doesn't go for housing or living expenses. You know...the rich. The other thing an improved stock price does is justify the exec's bonuses.

But one thing to ponder...and this applies to the Sprints as well as your example of airlines....how much more are you willing to pay for that better service? When the costs are about $10 it's a no brainer. But are you saying that after that one experience of poor service on an airline, you'd still avoid them, even if the cost was $100 more? What happens when you patronize an airline that is asking their employees to undergo their second or third round of pay and benefit concessions? Tell them "nobody owes you a job...now get me my coke"? Will you change airlines yet again because the workforce is being driven out of the middle class and the service they provide suffers? When someone dumps Sprint and goes to MCI, only to discover that in order to remain competitive with Sprint, MCI sends even MORE jobs overseas to keep costs down, what happens next?

 

[FredF]

KC,

You emphasize a point I was trying to make a while ago only you don't know it. The liberal Democrats, and yes I am being specific here have managed, over a long period of time to convince people that a tax cut actually costs the government money. It is not the government's money in the first place.

You seem to be hung up on sprint and their cause and effect relationship to the economy. Sprint is one company, not the whole of the economy and what they do or do not do, is not cause or result of the actions by the president.

What is the job of the president and congress by the way, is to create an environment where companies can grow and the economy can grow. Jobs are being created. There were huge losses and impact to the economy due to first the recession that started before Bush took office and then 9/11 which only served to stregnthen it. The President acted in the best interests of the Nation, not just sprint and you.

The other problem that you are actually wanting to increase, is that the government has tried to be all things to all people and it can't nor should it be. There are limits to what the government should be spending but to hear you talk, the government is not spending enough and yet you still complain that it should spend more.

The bigger it gets, the more it eats. The more it eats, the less there is left over for everyone else. And you and Kerry seem to keep wanting it to get bigger. You are advocating taking more of my money, at gun point, to pay for more and more things.

I am saying two things here. First, it is not the responsability of the government nor the blame of the President to control how a company acts and what impact the actions of that single company have. The other thing I am saying is that the government needs to be cut way back. A lot of these entitlement programs need to be done away with. A lot of the pork needs to be gone from the budget. Then maybe people would have more of thier own money to spend and then would not need the all encompassing government for everything. Kerry, on the other hand, wants to increase the need of the people and their reliance on the government.

I don't think for one minute that the President has done a stellar job in that regard, but I know that Kerry will do worse.

Taxing the so called Rich won't fix it either even though I know you think it will. Let me ask you, who do you think will create more jobs this year, you or Bill Gates?

Who will contribute more money back into the economy this year, you or Rush Limbaugh?


And if you think that when the government gets into health care things are going to get better, just look at the situation with the flu shots this year. That is a direct result of Hillary Care causing companies that previously made the vaccine going out of business. She wanted to mandate that the vaccine be available for everyone at a reduced cost. She managed to get price controls on the vaccine so that is was no longer profitable for companies to manufacture it anymore. They had no incentive to make the drug, they stopped making it. Now there is a lot less to go around which has lead to false panic and rationing of it.

Now, take a hard honest look at that and see if you want the government getting into healthcare. I know I don't.

 

[KCFlyer]

KC,
You seem to be hung up on sprint and their cause and effect relationship to the economy. Sprint is one company, not the whole of the economy and what they do or do not do, is not cause or result of the actions by the president.

Forgive me for being hung up on the largest employer in my city. I'm pretty sure that if you look in every major city, there are companies who have offshored jobs. Lots of jobs.

What is the job of the president and congress by the way, is to create an environment where companies can grow and the economy can grow. Jobs are being created.

But....not high paying jobs, and more importantly, not as many jobs have been created to offset those that have been lost.

The other problem that you are actually wanting to increase, is that the government has tried to be all things to all people and it can't nor should it be. There are limits to what the government should be spending but to hear you talk, the government is not spending enough and yet you still complain that it should spend more.

Please...tell me what the government "should" provide...a military? Great. I agree. How do you pay for the military? Your tax revenues are down in case you didn't notice...and abolishing Social Security today won't make up the shortfall (deficeit) the country faces. Where will the government get the money to finance the military? Anything else the government should fund?

I am saying two things here. First, it is not the responsability of the government nor the blame of the President to control how a company acts and what impact the actions of that single company have. The other thing I am saying is that the government needs to be cut way back. A lot of these entitlement programs need to be done away with. A lot of the pork needs to be gone from the budget.

Don't look now, but W just signed $315 BILLION in pork to corporations...with no strings about little things like "job creation" attached. That's not entitlements to a bum who is too lazy to work....it's "entitlements" for business. You might argue that those corporate entitlements "create jobs", yet companies AREN'T creating jobs. What is that money going to? An entitlement is an entitlement, is it not?

Then maybe people would have more of thier own money to spend and then would not need the all encompassing government for everything. Kerry, on the other hand, wants to increase the need of the people and their reliance on the government.

That's the part you're missing Fred....when a job that paid $50,000 per year is eliminated and replaced by a job that pays $20,000 a year, the people DON'T have more of their own money to spend...even with Bushkies tax cuts. They don't have half of what they made before their job was eliminated. And the resulting tax revenues, you know, the stuff that pays for the military that the government should fund, are reduced.

Taxing the so called Rich won't fix it either even though I know you think it will. Let me ask you, who do you think will create more jobs this year, you or Bill Gates?

First, I didn't say "tax the rich"....I said "tax corporations". The tax breaks given to corporations have them paying less (percentage wise) than many in the fast disappearing "middle class"(remenber them?). I believe Bill Gates told Bush that he didn't need a tax cut.

Who will contribute more money back into the economy this year, you or Rush Limbaugh?

I don't know...if Rush is taking advantage of his "offshore accounts" that many of the "well to do" avail themselves, odds are pretty good that I will indeed put more money back into this economy than Rush.

And if you think that when the government gets into health care things are going to get better, just look at the situation with the flu shots this year. That is a direct result of Hillary Care causing companies that previously made the vaccine going out of business. She wanted to mandate that the vaccine be available for everyone at a reduced cost. She managed to get price controls on the vaccine so that is was no longer profitable for companies to manufacture it anymore. They had no incentive to make the drug, they stopped making it. Now there is a lot less to go around which has lead to false panic and rationing of it.

Fredo....I work in public health. Hillary had nothing to do with contaminated vaccine. Seems like a supplier in Florida is taking some heat for charging $800 for vacine that two weeks earlier they were selling for $80. And making a profit at it. Guess the profit wasn't enough, so they diverted those costs to marketing their penis enhancing drugs....where the money is. Just goes to show that Americans will balk at taking care of the public health but the skies the limit on increasing the performance of their Johnson. Oh...by the way...if Osama happens to hit your town with Anthrax or Smallpox, be sure to make a donation to the folks giving the shots in your area. Otherwise it's all paid for by Uncle Sam. They'll appreciate any contributions.

 

[FredF]

No KC, it is you unfortunately that doesn't get it.

You don't get it.

The government does not owe you a job. They do not owe you a living. They do not owe you health care insurance.

The Government is tasked with ensuring that you have the same opportunities as everyone else and you are responsable for providing for yourself. If a company decides to ship jobs to another country it is not the government's fault. You had the same opportunities as those who were in a position to make that decision.

This country has become so dependant on the government handout it is starting to reach its own critical mass. Let me give you the perfect example.

A couple governors ago here in ga, they created this program called the hope scholarship. It was supposed to be funded with Lottery Money. Fine and good. Well, it seems that recipients are up and lottery money is down. Now, should the current governor even think about telling people that due to limited funding, they might have to change the requirements, the people would flat out revolt. See, it is not longer the responsability of the parents or even the students to provide for a college education, it has not become the responsability of the State Government. A program that started off with good intentions has now become another huge entitlement program that is sucking more and more money out of the state budget. Why? Because people believe they are entitled to it.

Instead of using money to provide better midicade to those that really need it, they have to take more money so that people don't have to pay to put their kids through college.

Senator Red Nose proposed a while ago to take tobaco tax money and use it to fund health care for children. Sounds good right, I mean who wants children to be sick and with out coverage, even though there is not provision in the constitution for the government to provide healthcare insurance. Couple of problems here. One, tobacco tax revenue is steadly declining so what happens when the cost of his program exceeds the revenue generated from those taxes? Where does that money come from?

Second, the next step, not hidden at all, is to use that as a stepping stone to this crap called Universal Health Care that Hillary and Kennedy have been trying to get pased for years. Who is going to pay for that?

Raising taxes on the Rich just aint' going to cut it. They have been paying more than their fair share for years. Oh it sounds good, class warfare and all is great for those that don't want to put forth the effort to work hard to get there. but they have all, or at least most all, have had the same opportunities to achieve in life what they envy of others. They could have worked harder, gone to med school and become a cardiologist working 8 days a month and flying a Sr22 the rest of the time.

They could have gone to school, law school, and become an attorney. The vast majority of the people in this country have had the same opportunites that everyone else has. If I can put myself through school and actually manage to make a decent living than anyone else can. So don't go trying to take more money out of my pocket by force or tell me how terrible it is for those that got laid off becuase Sprint is mean and evil spirited. I got laid off. I had the opportunity to keep working for the same company but to move to an area of the country that offered little if any prospects should something else happen. I chose to take my chances. I am where I am today exactly becuase if the decisions I have made. Some good, others not so much, but they were my descisions.

I don't blame that company for letting me go, well actually I do but that is another topic, but I didn't sit around and lament and while poor me what shall I do now and who is going to take care of me. I took care of myself.

First, I was smart enough to have mone set aside for just such an occasion. Second, I had options. I put myself into a place where I could take advantage of any opportunity that came along. I didn't go into a corner and curse my lot in life because I know that it is the decisions that I have made that got me where I was.

That is the part I don't beleive you get. People are where they are because of the decisions they make in life. People on welfare, with three kids are there because of the decisions they made. Doctors found out a long time ago what caused kids. Guess what, people that make good decisions don't have kids untill they can afford them.

Now, before you go trying to rip me for that, yes there are people in situations that are not of their own making. They exist even they are few and far between. Those are precisely the people that need helping. But the problem with helping them is all these other people that put themselvs into these positions that make helping the turely needy ones hard.

Now I am sure you are going to rip into me for all sorts of stuff. Go ahead, just remember some things are true weather you believe them or not. Some things are true weather you lime them or not.


Have fun as I'm sure you will.

 

[KCFlyer]

No KC, it is you unfortunately that doesn't get it.

You don't get it.

The government does not owe you a job. They do not owe you a living. They do not owe you health care insurance.

The Government is tasked with ensuring that you have the same opportunities as everyone else and you are responsable for providing for yourself. If a company decides to ship jobs to another country it is not the government's fault. You had the same opportunities as those who were in a position to make that decision.

This country has become so dependant on the government handout it is starting to reach its own critical mass. Let me give you the perfect example.

A couple governors ago here in ga, they created this program called the hope scholarship. It was supposed to be funded with Lottery Money. Fine and good. Well, it seems that recipients are up and lottery money is down. Now, should the current governor even think about telling people that due to limited funding, they might have to change the requirements, the people would flat out revolt. See, it is not longer the responsability of the parents or even the students to provide for a college education, it has not become the responsability of the State Government. A program that started off with good intentions has now become another huge entitlement program that is sucking more and more money out of the state budget. Why? Because people believe they are entitled to it.

Instead of using money to provide better midicade to those that really need it, they have to take more money so that people don't have to pay to put their kids through college.

Senator Red Nose proposed a while ago to take tobaco tax money and use it to fund health care for children. Sounds good right, I mean who wants children to be sick and with out coverage, even though there is not provision in the constitution for the government to provide healthcare insurance. Couple of problems here. One, tobacco tax revenue is steadly declining so what happens when the cost of his program exceeds the revenue generated from those taxes? Where does that money come from?

Second, the next step, not hidden at all, is to use that as a stepping stone to this crap called Universal Health Care that Hillary and Kennedy have been trying to get pased for years. Who is going to pay for that?

Raising taxes on the Rich just aint' going to cut it. They have been paying more than their fair share for years. Oh it sounds good, class warfare and all is great for those that don't want to put forth the effort to work hard to get there. but they have all, or at least most all, have had the same opportunities to achieve in life what they envy of others. They could have worked harder, gone to med school and become a cardiologist working 8 days a month and flying a Sr22 the rest of the time.

They could have gone to school, law school, and become an attorney. The vast majority of the people in this country have had the same opportunites that everyone else has. If I can put myself through school and actually manage to make a decent living than anyone else can. So don't go trying to take more money out of my pocket by force or tell me how terrible it is for those that got laid off becuase Sprint is mean and evil spirited. I got laid off. I had the opportunity to keep working for the same company but to move to an area of the country that offered little if any prospects should something else happen. I chose to take my chances. I am where I am today exactly becuase if the decisions I have made. Some good, others not so much, but they were my descisions.

I don't blame that company for letting me go, well actually I do but that is another topic, but I didn't sit around and lament and while poor me what shall I do now and who is going to take care of me. I took care of myself.

First, I was smart enough to have mone set aside for just such an occasion. Second, I had options. I put myself into a place where I could take advantage of any opportunity that came along. I didn't go into a corner and curse my lot in life because I know that it is the decisions that I have made that got me where I was.

That is the part I don't beleive you get. People are where they are because of the decisions they make in life. People on welfare, with three kids are there because of the decisions they made. Doctors found out a long time ago what caused kids. Guess what, people that make good decisions don't have kids untill they can afford them.

Now, before you go trying to rip me for that, yes there are people in situations that are not of their own making. They exist even they are few and far between. Those are precisely the people that need helping. But the problem with helping them is all these other people that put themselvs into these positions that make helping the turely needy ones hard.

[post="197325"][/post]​

I never said the government owes me a job or health care or any of the things you cite. I only said that corporations should pay a bigger share of taxes than they are, or...in return for tax breaks ($315 billion just the other day) they have to show SOMETHING in the way of job creation within the borders of the USA.

But a couple of quick question - 25 words or less.

1. What should the government provide?
2. How should it be paid for?
3. How will Bush's plan pay for it?

Should be simple, but I have noticed that when you are asked a question, the answer rarely is given.

 

[FredF]

1. What should the government provide?
2. How should it be paid for?
3. How will Bush's plan pay for it?

[post="197328"][/post]​

There are basic services that the government should provide. Common defense. Services that cross state lines. The government should provide for a limited safety net for those that fall on hard times. The government should help people get back on their feet, but the government should not be a way of life. There are far too many people that depend on the government for way too much.

The government should provide an equal playing field and allow for everybody to have the same opportunity. That does not mean that everyone is entitled to the same results, merely the same opportunity to acheive what they desire. The government does that sometime well but all too often not. Take a look at road construction. Did you know that the federal government will not allow a company that lays down a road to provide any type of warranty for that road? That is right. Instead of paying a small percentage more durning the construction, the federal government will keep paying more and more to have that road repaired rather then pay to have it done right and better in the first place.

There are better ways of doing most of what the government does. But taking roadwork into accout, guess what. Labor unions complain that without repair work to keep their members busy, they would have to find other work. So instead of doing it right, they continue to pay to have roads repaired and continue to pour more of your tax dollars into these unions so they can keep their members happy.

Instead of paying all these people to repair roads that weren't built well in the first place, imagine how much money the government would save if they were done right the first time and just what that could be put to use on.

Obvously the government requires money in the form of taxes and tarifs. But by actually making sense, something congress won't do, and spending money wisely, the government would actually realize a significant savings that would pay for a whole lot more.


Bush's plan, unfortunately doesn't do a whole lot of this but to the question that you didn't ask, neither does Kerry. In fact, Kerry is much worse with what he has promised to spend. Then you take his record in the senate you can only imagine that he will try to spend even more that what he has promised.


There- I answered all three of your questions so now answer one simple one from me if you please.


If you pay 1000 in taxes and I pay 100 in taxes and you get a 5% tax break and I get a 10% tax break. That would mean that you pay $50 less in taxes while I pay $10 less in taxes, who got the better tax break?

 

[NWA/AMT]

The government does not owe you a job. They do not owe you a living.

[post="197325"][/post]​

Again I ask, if you are unable to find a job, are we to let you starve?

They do not owe you health care insurance.

Again I ask, if you become sick and don't have health insurance, are we to let you die?

 

[AA-MCI]

Fred....here's what your missing...AA-MCI's wife was making a pretty good wage. That translated into federal, state, and local tax income. That job goes to India. They don't pay taxes to the US government, the state of Missouri, or the city of Kansas City over there. Jobs in KC are fairly hard to come by (good jobs anyways), so if she takes another job that pays less....there is less income to the federal, state, and local governments. That impacts communities...Bush's tax cuts come at a cost. Without federal funds to assist local governments, the burden falls to the states. With reduced tax revenues (not because of tax cuts, but because the jobs replacing the lost jobs aren't paying as much) come reduced services. Bushie talks about "no child left behind", but these job cuts leave lots of kids behind....funding for schools comes mostly from the state and local level. States are trying to balance little things like police and fire protection with improving schools. And they try to lure business to their community in hopes of improving the economy....and the carrot that they use is....corporate tax breaks. This on top of the plethora of federal tax breaks for corporations.

[post="197132"][/post]​

When Sprint agreed to move their headquarters here, they demanded huge tax breaks from the state and county, and they kept those tax breaks even after the jobs that were supposed to offset them are gone. So now people who don't work for Sprint have to pay their taxes for them while Sprint pockets the cash.

To replace her good paying, full-time job, my wife would have to take two part-time jobs as there are no equivalent full-time jobs available. Even then she would not get the benefits she had at Sprint. Luckily, I still have benefits from AA, at least for the moment.

The economic impact goes beyond lost tax revenue. Our consumer spending is also way down, which impacts other businesses in our area. We were planning to replace my truck, a '94 Ford and my wife's car, a '95 Mercury, but didn't, so the economic impact even reaches out of state.

You got yours, FredF, and that's all you really care about. I hope you don't make products that people buy or you might feel the impact of the policies you support some day.

 

[FredF]

Again I ask, if you are unable to find a job, are we to let you starve?

[post="197344"][/post]​

There are safety nets out there designed to help people out of tight spots. If people refuse to make better descisions then they should endure the consequences of those bad decisions. There are places out there to work. I know and individual that just got out of jail. He found not only one full time job fairly quickly but a second part time job. He has no car, nor a liscense to drive it if he had one, yet here he is, out of jail for about a month and a half. He lives at a shelter but he is working, eating and trying very hard to get back on his feet.

Was he priveledged? Was he lucky? No, he had a determined attitude and a willingness to work and work hard and guess what, he is doing exactly that. He is not starving. The opportunities are out there, people just have to be willing to go find them and work for them.

If you don't want to get up off you butt and go find work and feed yourself, why should I feed you?

Again I ask, if you become sick and don't have health insurance, are we to let you die?

Healthcare insurance is not the same as access to health care. You can go to any emergency room in the country, without money, without insurance and get treated if you need it.

Again, there are programs out there for those that truly need them, but they cannot function properly because of all the others that believe they are entitled to live off the government dole. These programs are a necessary thing, but they need to make sense. They need to be a safety net, not a way of life and all too often they are a way of life.

You know, I know of this couple that has fallen on hard times. They had their first child before they were married. The knew what caused that one when they had their second. The promised family that they would not have any more before they had a third one.

The one, not children here, insists that his wife stays home with the kids, but feels that if she can stay home then he can too. Everytime she gets a job and they start to get out from under, he makes her quit because she is away from home too much. Now they have no income and are on welfare and food stamps.

Now you tell me, who's fault that is is why I should keep paying taxes to support them?

You tell me why I have to have money, that I worked hard to get, taken away from me by force, in order to feed them?

Go ahead, tell me why?

 

[KCFlyer]

If you pay 1000 in taxes and I pay 100 in taxes and you get a 5% tax break and I get a 10% tax break. That would mean that you pay $50 less in taxes while I pay $10 less in taxes, who got the better tax break?

[post="197340"][/post]​

The corporations, who pay only 8% of all tax revenues. The individuals make up the difference.

And I know that math is "irrefutable", but reality isn't. Let's use reality, shall we?

Do you know someone who only pays $100 in taxes? How about $1,000.
Didn't think so. But lets say that the first guy paid $3500 in taxes - thats roughly what a family of 4 with a household income of $50,000 taking the standard deduction would pay. And lets say the second guy paid $100,000 in taxes. If the first guy gets a 10% cut, he gets an extra $350 per year. If the guy paying $100,000 in taxes gets a 5% cut, he gets an extra $5,000 per year. The first guy gets enough to buy groceries for a month. The second guy gets enough to take the family to Disney World. Who got the better tax break?

 

[FredF]

The corporations, who pay only 8% of all tax revenues. The individuals make up the difference.

And I know that math is "irrefutable", but reality isn't. Let's use reality, shall we?

Do you know someone who only pays $100 in taxes? How about $1,000.
Didn't think so. But lets say that the first guy paid $3500 in taxes - thats roughly what a family of 4 with a household income of $50,000 taking the standard deduction would pay. And lets say the second guy paid $100,000 in taxes. If the first guy gets a 10% cut, he gets an extra $350 per year. If the guy paying $100,000 in taxes gets a 5% cut, he gets an extra $5,000 per year. The first guy gets enough to buy groceries for a month. The second guy gets enough to take the family to Disney World. Who got the better tax break?

[post="197361"][/post]​

Don't change the question because you don't like it. Answer it. I have asked it may times yet nobody seems to want to answer it.


Besides, do you not think that the people that work at Disney world deserve to work? What about the airlines that transported them. What about the vendors that stocked the machines and the employees of the hotel. How about gas for the car. What about the people that make the souveniers that they bought and the companies that make the raw materials that they were made from.

Don't forget about the taxes on the hotel and the tickets for entry into the parkto go to orlando. The restraunts that they ate at during the trip and the tips paid to the wait staff that served them. Perhaps they had a bottle of wine that has its own taxes associated with it, the distribution company and the vineyard that bottled it and all the people that work there.

I don't know. I think they got a lower percentage tax releif but that more money actually went back into the economy. But hey, that could just be me right?

 

[NWA/AMT]

There are safety nets out there designed to help people out of tight spots.

[post="197360"][/post]​

Welfare being one of them.

The opportunities are out there, people just have to be willing to go find them and work for them.

Indeed, and hope that they have the skills required to perform them. Particluarly with the Bush administration cutting funding for worker retraining when demand for those funds are at their greatest.

If you don't want to get up off you butt and go find work and feed yourself, why should I feed you?

What if they do "get up off you butt and go find work" and it's still not enough to survive. Fred? How many jobs do you expect them to hold before you're willing to see your tax dollars go to food stamps to feed them?

You can go to any emergency room in the country, without money, without insurance and get treated if you need it.

Sure, Wal-Mart has proven that. Who do think pays for it in the end, Fred?

Again, there are programs out there for those that truly need them, but they cannot function properly because of all the others that believe they are entitled to live off the government dole.

Perhaps you haven't heard of Welfare Reform? The state of Georgia limits the amount of benefits to 48 months. In actuality, people "live off the government dole" far less than that, but acknowledging that fact would disrupt your rant.

http://www2.state.ga.us/Departments/DHR/tanf.html

Now you tell me, who's fault that is is why I should keep paying taxes to support them?

You tell me why I have to have money, that I worked hard to get, taken away from me by force, in order to feed them?

You just said there are safety nets but now you say you don't want to fund them? Where do you think the money comes from, Fred? I know a lot of people who want to know why their taxes are spent on missiles they don't think we need, so maybe you guys could get together and decide where to spend your money.

Go ahead, tell me why?

For the same reason a pacifists taxes are spent on missiles, Fred: To carry on the idea that the purpose of our government is to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare".

It doesn't say "only when we agree with it".

 

[sentrido]

http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html

The final word on the tax issue as far as im concerned.

 

[FredF]

Indeed, and hope that they have the skills required to perform them.

The individual I mentioned just got out of jail. Exactly what skill do you think he had?

You just said there are safety nets but now you say you don't want to fund them?

That is not what I said at all and if you would quit taking things out of context and actually read what I said, you might understand that. But I guess that that might mean you actually had an open mind about it or that someone with a different opinion might actually have a point.

If you bothered to get your head out of your fourth point of contact, you might just see that.

You can go to any emergency room in the country, without money, without insurance and get treated if you need it.
Sure, Wal-Mart has proven that. Who do think pays for it in the end, Fred?

Ahh whats the matter? I answer your question, but you don't like the answer? You have to ask a completely different question after you take the answer completely out of context... again.

And you wonder why I dismiss these questions you ask. You don't accept the answer, you slice and dice every post so that you can continue to take answers completely out of context then pose another question as if the first one was not answered.



Nah, I know you can't stand that. You can't stand the thought that someone out there might actully have a thought that doesn't agree with you and my goodness they might actually have a point.


Just keep slicing and dicing. I am sure it make you happy.

 

[KCFlyer]

Don't change the question because you don't like it. Answer it. I have asked it may times yet nobody seems to want to answer it....
I don't know. I think they got a lower percentage tax releif but that more money actually went back into the economy. But hey, that could just be me right?

[post="197364"][/post]​

I did answer it, but the real life example showed a more of a difference than $10 and $50. All I did was take the taxes paid by someone making $50,000 and someone making $500,000 as the example. Same percentages....different result. Sorry you didn't like the answer.

As for the $5000...it most likely would be "invested" in the stock market...not providing jobs....not paying salaries....not doing anything to improve the economy.

but allow me to dissect some of your posts using some your words:

Besides, do you not think that the people that work at Disney world deserve to work?

Nobody owes them a job.

What about the airlines that transported them. What about the vendors that stocked the machines and the employees of the hotel.

Nobody owes them a job. Most likely got the cheap seats on the airplane ride. Those airline employees should take those wage cuts to keep their airline competitive. If they can't, quit and find another job.

The vendor that stocked the machines and the employees of the hotel most likely envy the poor sucker who only got a $350 tax break...they'd love a job that paid "that high".

How about gas for the car.

Good thing he had $5 grand, what with the price of gas these days.

What about the people that make the souveniers that they bought and the companies that make the raw materials that they were made from.


Your concern for the Chinese is admirable. I don't know many souvenier making companies here in the USA.

Don't forget about the taxes on the hotel and the tickets for entry into the parkto go to orlando. The restraunts that they ate at during the trip and the tips paid to the wait staff that served them. Perhaps they had a bottle of wine that has its own taxes associated with it, the distribution company and the vineyard that bottled it and all the people that work there.

Ain't it great that the person staying has to pay exhorbitant tax rates, while the hotel chain gets a huge tax break, but still only has to pay minimum wage to it's employees