AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → SC Gov. Sanford set to reject stimulus millions

55 8589
bigdaddyg
offline
bigdaddyg
372 posts
Nomad

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_on_re_us/sanford_stimulus
thats the address copy paste it into ur browser...


well what do u think? is he right? wrong? just plain old stupid? or is he politically motivated?

please give reasons for ur opinion
thank you

  • 55 Replies
Alric
offline
Alric
52 posts
Nomad

Xzeno - Is that as a result of the Governator, or is that something that has long been in place?

Alric

donosld
offline
donosld
70 posts
Nomad

How is it awsome that he is turning down money that would go toward education and welfare. More money for education is a GREAT things for any group of people anywhere. The US's public school system is why we because a superpower and our lack of funding for them in resent years is why we might because a 3rd world country.
Why republicans to ****ing stupid sometimes?


The reason some governors are turning down the stimulus money designed for welfare and education (I'm from Texas, and I thoroughly support my Governor's decision to reject the money) is because its going to majorly increase taxes in the long run. The money from the bill will fund these new welfare and education benefits for about a year and a half. After that, the states are left on their own to find ways to fund new institutions that the federal government put in place. So it will raise state taxes tremendously.
Zootsuit_riot
offline
Zootsuit_riot
1,523 posts
Nomad

The money from the bill will fund these new welfare and education benefits for about a year and a half. After that, the states are left on their own to find ways to fund new institutions that the federal government put in place. So it will raise state taxes tremendously.


I was listening to Bobby Jindal's "counter-stimulus" speech and all I heard him mention was that he doesn't want people on welfare anymore. I don't see how taxes would increase, because welfare's already in place; that's not a new institution. Money for schools and education is going to be spent on remodeling buildings and making them more energy efficient, as well as upgrading technology within the schools. I don't see any money going to "new institutions" as you claim there to be.
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

The money from the bill will fund these new welfare and education benefits for about a year and a half. After that, the states are left on their own to find ways to fund new institutions that the federal government put in place. So it will raise state taxes tremendously.

Oh, I know. I mean, helping the poor? Educating children? That's borderline evil. I mean, seriously. Teaching kids? Helping poor people? That's like, an unforgivable wrongdoing.
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

Is that as a result of the Governator, or is that something that has long been in place?
I believe it is the latter, but I don't know enough on the subject to supply a meaningful answer.
donosld
offline
donosld
70 posts
Nomad

I was listening to Bobby Jindal's "counter-stimulus" speech and all I heard him mention was that he doesn't want people on welfare anymore. I don't see how taxes would increase, because welfare's already in place; that's not a new institution. Money for schools and education is going to be spent on remodeling buildings and making them more energy efficient, as well as upgrading technology within the schools. I don't see any money going to "new institutions" as you claim there to be.


Money from the stimulus will increase the amount of money people get from unemployment. If I was informed correctly, there is a clause in the bill which states that you can not accept any of the money without accepting all of social policies that the democrats are trying to pass off as an economic stimulus package. (ie. you can't just take the money to repair the schools, you need to take the money to pay the teacher's more too). Due to the record high unemployment initiated by Obama's need to kill the American spirit and drive small business into the ground, state's won't be getting as much money in taxes as they usually do. This higher level of spending is just not sustainable in some states who are already running a budget deficit. Since President Obama seems intent on bankrupting our federal government, in about three years when the states will need even more money to bail them out of the hole this bailout will cause, there won't be any money left, and China will have wised up and stopped lending us money that we don't know how to spend effectively.

Oh, I know. I mean, helping the poor? Educating children? That's borderline evil. I mean, seriously. Teaching kids? Helping poor people? That's like, an unforgivable wrongdoing.


I can tell this was written by somebody who doesn't have a job and doesn't pay taxes. You work your butt off for a decent salary and then have the government come in and take it away so that they can give it to people who didn't find it necessary to go to school so that they could get a decent job. I'm not saying that educating children and helping the poor are evil things. But at a time when the economy is REALLY hurting, the federal government is running out of money, businesses are going under, hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs, the LAST thing we want to is increase spending. Cut taxes on businesses so they can afford to employee people. This entails cutting spending so that you don't go bankrupt. Allow these people, who now have jobs, to collect money without taking it away from them by keeping personal taxes low. Since people have money, people will spend money, and in turn you get money from sales taxes. Then you can afford to renovate your schools and help the needy, pay teacher's more, throw a huge party with it, don't care what you do, just keep taxes low.
Alric
offline
Alric
52 posts
Nomad

When taxes are lower, people have more money to spend. When people have more money to spend, they buy more. When people buy more, business are more successful, which allows them to keep paying their employees, and pay them more. When employees are making more money (or making money at all), they are spending more in the economy, especially since their taxes are lower.

I can't quote exact figures, but I believe the amount of money doled out to the Big Three car manufacturers is equivalent to about $25,000 per tax-paying citizen. I don't know about you, but an extra $25,000 would completely change my life. There are some who are making enough that $25k wouldn't make a huge difference, but for the vast majority of tax-payers, that's a huge chunk of change. Will all that extra money poured into the economy, don't you think we'd all be spending a little more, which would help businesses of every size?

And by the way, isn't it possible that some of those tax-paying citizens might use some of that $25k to buy cars? And wouldn't that be even more effective than bailing out a company that hasn't handled its finances correctly? All the Big Three are doing with that money is advertising more. And what good is that going to do? People aren't avoiding car purchases because they haven't been convinced to buy a car; they're keeping their old car because they can't afford a new one.

Alric

thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

I can tell this was written by somebody who doesn't have a job and doesn't pay taxes. You work your butt off for a decent salary and then have the government come in and take it away so that they can give it to people who didn't find it necessary to go to school so that they could get a decent job. I'm not saying that educating children and helping the poor are evil things. But at a time when the economy is REALLY hurting, the federal government is running out of money, businesses are going under, hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs, the LAST thing we want to is increase spending. Cut taxes on businesses so they can afford to employee people. This entails cutting spending so that you don't go bankrupt. Allow these people, who now have jobs, to collect money without taking it away from them by keeping personal taxes low. Since people have money, people will spend money, and in turn you get money from sales taxes. Then you can afford to renovate your schools and help the needy, pay teacher's more, throw a huge party with it, don't care what you do, just keep taxes low.

This makes sense, but at the same time, the government gets money from taxes. We should cut income tax, cut property tax, but we should raise taxes on certain things that people don't need, like cigarettes or liquor. Since they relieve stress, sale of them is up, and even increasing tax on them a negligible amount will tremendously help in case the government needs to put money into supporting big companies.
------------
Money from the stimulus will increase the amount of money people get from unemployment. If I was informed correctly, there is a clause in the bill which states that you can not accept any of the money without accepting all of social policies that the democrats are trying to pass off as an economic stimulus package. (ie. you can't just take the money to repair the schools, you need to take the money to pay the teacher's more too). Due to the record high unemployment initiated by Obama's need to kill the American spirit and drive small business into the ground, state's won't be getting as much money in taxes as they usually do. This higher level of spending is just not sustainable in some states who are already running a budget deficit. Since President Obama seems intent on bankrupting our federal government, in about three years when the states will need even more money to bail them out of the hole this bailout will cause, there won't be any money left, and China will have wised up and stopped lending us money that we don't know how to spend effectively.

First, you said yourself that if people get more of their salary, then they will have money to spend. So, making the schools use the money to pay the teachers more will effect that much more than lowering the taxes slightly.
Second, Obama doesn't have a "need to kill the American spirit." That's preposterous. What's killing America's spirit is this recession, which was caused by a certain Texan man before Obama. . . .
-----------
Obama ending activity in Iraq will save us billions, you know. Billions that can be used to buy toxic assets to get the lending market flowing again, which will help the big three, because people can get car loans, and the real estate market, because people can get house loans.
--------
There are more ways that we can save money in conjunction with discretionary tax cuts than just the tax cuts alone.
Green12324
offline
Green12324
4,097 posts
Peasant

It's just stupid, by taking the money Sanford could have helped everyone out in the state. The governor put political interests before the well being of state citizens.

donosld
offline
donosld
70 posts
Nomad

Second, Obama doesn't have a "need to kill the American spirit." That's preposterous. What's killing America's spirit is this recession, which was caused by a certain Texan man before Obama. . . .


Let me rephrase, instead of the American Spirit I meant the American Dream, which President Obama is effectively putting six feet under with his incredibly high business taxes. Small businesses are going under like crazy, and big business is having to fire employees because they can't afford to pay the taxes on salaries. (You have to pay the government about 60% of what you pay your employee.) Barack Obama's business taxes and incredibly high taxes for upper income bracket American's are essentially killing the American Dream. Americans who make in the top 2.9% annually carry 50% of the tax burden. A man who makes a million dollars a year will have to pay more in taxes in one year than a man who makes 15,000 a year will have to pay in his lifetime. How is that fair? How does that give people hope? His "redistribution of wealth" that he talked about in his campaign really reminded me of something said by another famous politician... Lenin.

Obama ending activity in Iraq will save us billions, you know. Billions that can be used to buy toxic assets to get the lending market flowing again, which will help the big three, because people can get car loans, and the real estate market, because people can get house loans.


Read the news, Obama didn't end activity in Iraq, he extended the time our forces will be there from June 2011 until Dec 2011. MSNBC estimates that the US government is spending 200 million dollars in Iraq a day. That means President Obama's extension of the Iraqi war will cost American tax payers over 36 billion dollars, a minuscule amount compared to the amount of money that he's throwing to politicians and business executives. With all of the trillions of dollars President Obama has just spent, unemployment isn't dropping, the economy is still staggering. Congress is just passing bills without even reading what they say! (note Senator Chris DODD's unawareness of what was in the DODD Amendment.) The federal government is being grossly irresponsible with our money, and then expecting to just take more of it to bail themselves out. Its ridiculous. If President Obama worked for any of the companies he failed to bail out, he would have been fired for incompetence.
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

But at the same time, he is reducing the amount of troops there, which will also reduce the amount of money we will spend there.
-------
Actually, it makes sense that the millionaire would have to pay more taxes. Do you even know how minuscule 15,000 dollars is in comparison to a million? That's just simple math.

donosld
offline
donosld
70 posts
Nomad

Actually, it makes sense that the millionaire would have to pay more taxes. Do you even know how minuscule 15,000 dollars is in comparison to a million? That's just simple math.


How the heck is that fair?!? Our taxes are SUPPOSED to fund services that we all use, such as schools, highways, police/fire services, and our military. Does the man who makes a million dollars USE these services any more than the man who makes 15,000? Since my question was rhetorical i'll answer it myself. No. In fact people with lower incomes are statistically proven to have more kids, and therefore drain more of the tax payer's dollars by sending them to school. There are more police calls in lower income area's meaning that more money is put to use there too. Everybody is getting equal protection from our Armed Forces, and everybody uses our road system about equally. The guy who makes a million dollars a year isn't going to be filing for welfare, so why is he paying for it? Please explain to me how it is FAIR that the government is charging citizens who make more money MUCH more for it's services than its lower income citizens? Imagine if everything ran like that. If you went to the gocery store and saw that they listed several prices for milk. It read like this:

No job: FREE
less than $8,350/year: $3.50
less than $33,950/year: $5.25
less than $82,250/year: $8.75
less than $171,550/year: $9.80
less than $372,950/year: $11.55
more than $372,950/year: $12.25

That would be pretty unfair wouldn't it? I used the actual tax bracket cutoffs, with the actual scaled percentages assuming that the lowest bracket had to pay what i felt was a fairly standard price for milk, $3.50.

For a more concrete example lets look at how much those citizens at those tax bracket cutoffs would have to pay annually, once again I'm using the 2009 bracket cutoffs with the 2009 tax percentages.

$8,350 or less a year: 10% therefore you pay about 835 dollars in taxes.

$33,950 or less: 15% therefore you would pay $5,092.50 dollars in taxes a year.

$82,250 or less: 25% therefore you pay $20,562.50 dollars a year.

$171,550 or less: 28% therefore up to $48,034 dollars a year.

$372,950 or less: 33% therefore up to $123,073.50

Above that, for argument's sake lets say a million: 35% therefore $350,000 a year in taxes.

Lets do some math on this. That means for a man who makes in the lowest tax bracket will have to pay taxes for 420 years before paying as much as a man who makes a million dollars a year will pay annually. A man who makes 15,000 would have to pay for 156 years to pay off the same amount. And that's just in FEDERAL taxes. The man who makes more has to pay taxes on his house, which presumably costs more. If he doesn't live in Texas or Arizona, he's got to pay state income tax, which can be as high as an extra 7%, thats $70,000 dollars to a millionaire. How exactly does that "make sense" that one man is paying that much more for services that he uses equally, if not less than the man who makes less?
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

That means for a man who makes in the lowest tax bracket will have to pay taxes for 420 years before paying as much as a man who makes a million dollars a year will pay annually.


A man in the lowest tax bracket would have to work for 120 years to earn the same as a man who earns a million. That's not exactly fair either. That's what progressive taxation is for, to balance out an unegalitarian system.
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

@donosld, your thinking ultimately fails. Why? Well, you need to acknowledge that not everybody who makes 15,000 a year can just snap their fingers and be a millionaire. Hard work won't always make you a millionaire. Also, it is fair that every citizen in this country gets equal protection from our armed forces. It's called "serving" for a reason. You are not some gun for hire to defend the rich guy, you are a patriot laying down your life to protect your country and everybody in it. Sending children to school should not be judged on the taxes you pay. Education is in a different category than the other services, because it is necessary. Also, they are charging them less because every cent means more to them. Lower income people can't just pull money out of their asses. Also, it is proportional. 70,000$ is nothing to a millionaire. It is 7% of their income. If a person is making 1,000,000 a year, than 70,000 is almost nothing--it is 7%. You are forgetting that it is proportional. The 15,000$-a-year guy will have to work for 4.5 years to even reach how much the millionaire pays in taxes one year, because it is proportional. Also, there are more 911 calls in lower income areas because there is more crime out of necessity. NECESSITY. What you're saying is preposterous. Just because someone isn't a millionaire doesn't mean that that person doesn't deserve the same protection as a millionaire. Having more money doesn't make you ore deserving of anything. (except human growth hormone and 50,000$ caviar.)

donosld
offline
donosld
70 posts
Nomad

To: FireflyIV

America's economy isn't based on being egalitarian, its capitalist. You're thinking of a communist nation where the ideal is everybody earning the same amount of money. (note reference comparing Obama to Lenin earlier). This is not the American dream, yet this is what President Obama wants to do. We shouldn't "balance" out the wealth distribution by essentially robbing the wealthy and then giving it to the poor ie. welfare. President Obama's social reforms are exactly that socialist, and are corrupting the American Dream and turning this nation into another European style socialist government. The principle on which this nation was founded on, free enterprise, is being thrown away and replaced by something which is entirely un-American.

To: thisisnotanalt

Work on your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I state that the rich deserve BETTER protection and benefits from the government. My argument was based on the fact that those who make more money receive the SAME benefits from the government as those who make less, yet are stuck paying for much more of it. It doesn't matter how much you make, if you're receiving the same benefits you should pay the same for them!

Showing 16-30 of 55