I believe as Kuzi and I have both stated that there should be no legislation punishing people for global warming when there is no definate proof that we are causing it.
let me ammend this a bit. even if there is 100% proof that not only does global warming exist, and it is being caused by man, i dont want more taxes out of it. there are other ways to fix the problem without punishing. again, my tax incentive plan on page 18. the taxes on those companies would come back to where they are now but for a minute to help with the transition we would lower taxes and let people make a profit and take advantage of the switch in the process... we would not be driving a business out of business to force green energy into being. we would be helping those same companies become part of the solution, not part of the problem WHILE MAKING A PROFIT.
Yes, I will disagree in the fact that his results are tainted and have no bearing what-so-ever... Corruption is wrong on either side.
But you don't KNOW that he's corrupt.. All you see is that it's not entirely 100% unanimous. He doesn't publish his results and say, "by the way, I am being fed millions by Big Oil to say this even though it's not true"... How do you know that 3% of climatologists aren't being fed money by Big Oil? You're instead deciding to believe no less than 47% of climatologists are corrupt, rather than 3%. That makes no sense!
Yes it does make sense because never once have I said that I am certain there is no link between man and Global Warming, there is no proof of it though. I believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Prove to me without a doubt that we are causing Global Warming. I believe as Kuzi and I have both stated that there should be no legislation punishing people for global warming when there is no definate proof that we are causing it.
Then, for the last time... What would you consider PROOF?
Absolute hard evidence that gasses we are releasing are causing Global Warming. There is none. They can study temperature changes over history and say, "The planet is getting warmer, and the warming has increased since we became and industrialized world so therefore we must be to blame." but there really doesn't prove anything. By that line of thinking I could say, "The AIDS virus really gained a lot of ground in the 1980's and the band Flock of Seguls was just coming onto the sene... I think they are the cause the rapid spread of AIDS in the 1980's!" It isn't proof! It is simply speculation!
The AIDS virus really gained a lot of ground in the 1980's and the band Flock of Seguls was just coming onto the sene... I think they are the cause the rapid spread of AIDS in the 1980's!
The AIDS virus really gained a lot of ground in the 1980's and the band Flock of Seguls was just coming onto the sene... I think they are the cause the rapid spread of AIDS in the 1980's!
I KNEW IT!!!
those jerks...
I did too! I have been holding out on that piece of info until now. It's time the world knew!!!
Absolute hard evidence that gasses we are releasing are causing Global Warming. There is none. They can study temperature changes over history and say, "The planet is getting warmer, and the warming has increased since we became and industrialized world so therefore we must be to blame." but there really doesn't prove anything. By that line of thinking I could say, "The AIDS virus really gained a lot of ground in the 1980's and the band Flock of Seguls was just coming onto the sene... I think they are the cause the rapid spread of AIDS in the 1980's!" It isn't proof! It is simply speculation!
How much of that actual evidence have you looked at today? None. So how do you know exactly what those studies say? You have looked at the published opinions of scientists who have reviewed that evidence. 82% of those scientists believe that Global Warming exists and that man is a contributing factor.
The refusal of both of you to act according to the majority opinion of qualified experts, rather than your own hypotheses, is another example of your cognitive dissonance. Have a good day.
Absolute hard evidence that gasses we are releasing are causing Global Warming. There is none. They can study temperature changes over history and say, "The planet is getting warmer, and the warming has increased since we became and industrialized world so therefore we must be to blame." but there really doesn't prove anything. By that line of thinking I could say, "The AIDS virus really gained a lot of ground in the 1980's and the band Flock of Seguls was just coming onto the sene... I think they are the cause the rapid spread of AIDS in the 1980's!" It isn't proof! It is simply speculation!
How much of that actual evidence have you looked at today? None. So how do you know exactly what those studies say? You have looked at the published opinions of scientists who have reviewed that evidence. 82% of those scientists believe that Global Warming exists and that man is a contributing factor.
The refusal of both of you to act according to the majority opinion of qualified experts, rather than your own hypotheses, is another example of your cognitive dissonance. Have a good day.
dont just lump me in here. i dont care if its happening. all i care about is the government control that is going to be forced on us in the name of it when there are other options out there to fix a potential problem
i am actually in favor of green renewable energy... but not switching over to it by force. the only problem i have here is that it takes away liberties of people to tax us in the name of global warming...
look a few posts up. i may have explained it better there.
Absolute hard evidence that gasses we are releasing are causing Global Warming. There is none. They can study temperature changes over history and say, "The planet is getting warmer, and the warming has increased since we became and industrialized world so therefore we must be to blame." but there really doesn't prove anything. By that line of thinking I could say, "The AIDS virus really gained a lot of ground in the 1980's and the band Flock of Seguls was just coming onto the sene... I think they are the cause the rapid spread of AIDS in the 1980's!" It isn't proof! It is simply speculation!
How much of that actual evidence have you looked at today? None. So how do you know exactly what those studies say? You have looked at the published opinions of scientists who have reviewed that evidence. 82% of those scientists believe that Global Warming exists and that man is a contributing factor.
The refusal of both of you to act according to the majority opinion of qualified experts, rather than your own hypotheses, is another example of your cognitive dissonance. Have a good day.
Once again, they can pour over numbers and the history of temperature change for years and years... That still is not proof, it is purely speculation. It has nothing to do with "cognitive dissonance," (your favorite term in the last week) it has everything to do with lack of hard proof. Concrete evidence showing without a shadow of a doubt that it is true.
Absolute hard evidence that gasses we are releasing are causing Global Warming. There is none. They can study temperature changes over history and say, "The planet is getting warmer, and the warming has increased since we became and industrialized world so therefore we must be to blame." but there really doesn't prove anything. By that line of thinking I could say, "The AIDS virus really gained a lot of ground in the 1980's and the band Flock of Seguls was just coming onto the sene... I think they are the cause the rapid spread of AIDS in the 1980's!" It isn't proof! It is simply speculation!
How much of that actual evidence have you looked at today? None. So how do you know exactly what those studies say? You have looked at the published opinions of scientists who have reviewed that evidence. 82% of those scientists believe that Global Warming exists and that man is a contributing factor.
The refusal of both of you to act according to the majority opinion of qualified experts, rather than your own hypotheses, is another example of your cognitive dissonance. Have a good day.
dont just lump me in here. i dont care if its happening. all i care about is the government control that is going to be forced on us in the name of it when there are other options out there to fix a potential problem
i am actually in favor of green renewable energy... but not switching over to it by force. the only problem i have here is that it takes away liberties of people to tax us in the name of global warming...
look a few posts up. i may have explained it better there.
I agree that money needs to be spent. But the real difference is WHO is going to spend the money. I don't think the government should be the one doing the spending. With tax cuts it will put more money into the hands of the people that need it to pay bills, buy food, buy a new car... It is how money moves best, and most efficiently.
Actually, in these situations, it isn't. One of the few things there's near-universal agreement among economists on is the marginal efficiency of government dollars during a recession. Tax cuts are much less efficient than many kinds of spending. The biggest reason is that when people get cash during a recession, they don't spend a lot of it. They save it or use it to pay down existing debt. Those stimulate demand very, very little, which is the whole point of the gov't doing anything at all to address a recession: stimulate demand as much as possible. If the gov't just spends the money itself, all of it gets spent. If it hands it out in tax cuts, a lot of it doesn't.
As for getting money directly into the hands of people who will spend it to pay bills, buy food, etc., that's what a lot of the money in the stimulus bill does. The biggest chunk is extended unemployment benefits. That and food stamps are the most efficient uses of government dollars during a recession, because the money is going to people who will have to spend it; they can't afford to stick it savings or pay down debt.
Which is why it's so completely perverse that some conservative governors are refusing the unemployment money (or at least talking as if they will).
Besides, I don't know why you'd dislike the bill if you favor tax cuts. Forty percent of it is tax cuts. (Frankly, that's one of the problems with it, but it's weird to hear conservatives complaining about it.)
I agree that money needs to be spent. But the real difference is WHO is going to spend the money. I don't think the government should be the one doing the spending. With tax cuts it will put more money into the hands of the people that need it to pay bills, buy food, buy a new car... It is how money moves best, and most efficiently.
Actually, in these situations, it isn't. One of the few things there's near-universal agreement among economists on is the marginal efficiency of government dollars during a recession. Tax cuts are much less efficient than many kinds of spending. The biggest reason is that when people get cash during a recession, they don't spend a lot of it. They save it or use it to pay down existing debt. Those stimulate demand very, very little, which is the whole point of the gov't doing anything at all to address a recession: stimulate demand as much as possible. If the gov't just spends the money itself, all of it gets spent. If it hands it out in tax cuts, a lot of it doesn't.
As for getting money directly into the hands of people who will spend it to pay bills, buy food, etc., that's what a lot of the money in the stimulus bill does. The biggest chunk is extended unemployment benefits. That and food stamps are the most efficient uses of government dollars during a recession, because the money is going to people who will have to spend it; they can't afford to stick it savings or pay down debt.
Which is why it's so completely perverse that some conservative governors are refusing the unemployment money (or at least talking as if they will).
Besides, I don't know why you'd dislike the bill if you favor tax cuts. Forty percent of it is tax cuts. (Frankly, that's one of the problems with it, but it's weird to hear conservatives complaining about it.)
The governors are refusing it because it will create a precedent for this in the future that will put huge strains on the state budgets for years and years to come. Also your figure of 40% as tax cuts is wrong. There may be some strange twisted way you can come up with that figure, but it in no way relates to the reality of how this bill will affect people. Also Obama has already said he is going to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 which will be an across the board tax increase.
The governors are refusing it because it will create a precedent for this in the future that will put huge strains on the state budgets for years and years to come.
How does the federal gov't giving them money to spend create a precedent that will strain their budgets? The only precedent being set is that in deep recessions, the federal gov't is probably going to give them a lot of money to spend. Where's the strain?
PuroFreak:
Also your figure of 40% as tax cuts is wrong. There may be some strange twisted way you can come up with that figure, but it in no way relates to the reality of how this bill will affect people.
Also Obama has already said he is going to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 which will be an across the board tax increase.
Let's see. Somebody wrote and passed a tax law that said tax rates would be lower for a few years, and then they would go up again. Obama didn't write that law; it was the GOP. If you remember, they started off with a bill containing permanent tax cuts, but they couldn't get enough Republicans to go along with it. Seems they were worried it would create huge long-term deficits, which is the same concern Obama has now.
That will put a strain on the States budget because that money the federal government is throwing around isn't going to last forever. Once the federal $$ run out then the burden is left on the states and that is where the budget strain comes in. It's not that hard to figure out... Like the saying says, the biggest problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money.
And yes, the democrats proposed this as a 58-42 split, but most of the 42% is spending under the banner of tax cuts that will never actually be passed on to the actual citizens or businesses of our country. Here is where I disagree with that number: That number includes giving "rebates" to thousands of people WHO PAY NO TAXES TO BEGIN WITH!!! That is NOT a tax break my friend, that is a hand out.
Now along to your last part I agree with you, keeping the tax cuts with the current rate of spending would create an ENORMOUS deficit... (like we are going to avoid that anyway.) Tax cuts are only HALF of the solution. The other half being to CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING! Stop all the bullshit pork! President Obama needs to live up to his promises and do as he said and "Line by line cut the pork spending from Washington!" He rushed this bill through so fast without making any changes saying that he didn't have time because of the urgency for action. Well then why don't many of the things in the bill take effect for up to 10 years?? When the stats of MA is spending MILLIONS of dollars of their share for the "Edward Kennedy" library and memorial... that is CRAP and in NO WAY helps our economy.
That will put a strain on the States budget because that money the federal government is throwing around isn't going to last forever. Once the federal $$ run out then the burden is left on the states and that is where the budget strain comes in. It's not that hard to figure out... Like the saying says, the biggest problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money.
If the states are stupid enough to budget a one-time payment into their permanent forecasts going forward, that's their problem. Who are the states that will refuse this money? I bet they're run by Republicans. I guess they aren't confident in their own ability to manage their budgets and account for a one-time influx of free money.
PuroFreak:
And yes, the democrats proposed this as a 58-42 split, but most of the 42% is spending under the banner of tax cuts that will never actually be passed on to the actual citizens or businesses of our country. Here is where I disagree with that number: That number includes giving "rebates" to thousands of people WHO PAY NO TAXES TO BEGIN WITH!!! That is NOT a tax break my friend, that is a hand out.
Except that they still do pay taxes. They pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Just because they don't make enough to clear those thresholds and still have enough money to pay Federal Incom Tax, doesn't mean that they PAY NO TAXES TO BEGIN WITH!!!! (ahh!! scream!! zoom in and out rapidly!!!) Nice spin. While I'm speaking of spin, I will note that the headline to the supposedly "most politically-neutral" news organization calls it the 'Spendulus' Bill -- sounds like really impartial reporting there.
PuroFreak:
Now along to your last part I agree with you, keeping the tax cuts with the current rate of spending would create an ENORMOUS deficit... (like we are going to avoid that anyway.) Tax cuts are only HALF of the solution. The other half being to CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING! Stop all the bullshit pork! President Obama needs to live up to his promises and do as he said and "Line by line cut the pork spending from Washington!" He rushed this bill through so fast without making any changes saying that he didn't have time because of the urgency for action. Well then why don't many of the things in the bill take effect for up to 10 years?? When the stats of MA is spending MILLIONS of dollars of their share for the "Edward Kennedy" library and memorial... that is CRAP and in NO WAY helps our economy.
Except that the library and memorial will both give people permanent jobs.
That will put a strain on the States budget because that money the federal government is throwing around isn't going to last forever. Once the federal $$ run out then the burden is left on the states and that is where the budget strain comes in. It's not that hard to figure out... Like the saying says, the biggest problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money.
If the states are stupid enough to budget a one-time payment into their permanent forecasts going forward, that's their problem. Who are the states that will refuse this money? I bet they're run by Republicans. I guess they aren't confident in their own ability to manage their budgets and account for a one-time influx of free money.
PuroFreak:
And yes, the democrats proposed this as a 58-42 split, but most of the 42% is spending under the banner of tax cuts that will never actually be passed on to the actual citizens or businesses of our country. Here is where I disagree with that number: That number includes giving "rebates" to thousands of people WHO PAY NO TAXES TO BEGIN WITH!!! That is NOT a tax break my friend, that is a hand out.
Except that they still do pay taxes. They pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Just because they don't make enough to clear those thresholds and still have enough money to pay Federal Incom Tax, doesn't mean that they PAY NO TAXES TO BEGIN WITH!!!! (ahh!! scream!! zoom in and out rapidly!!!) Nice spin. While I'm speaking of spin, I will note that the headline to the supposedly "most politically-neutral" news organization calls it the 'Spendulus' Bill -- sounds like really impartial reporting there.
PuroFreak:
Now along to your last part I agree with you, keeping the tax cuts with the current rate of spending would create an ENORMOUS deficit... (like we are going to avoid that anyway.) Tax cuts are only HALF of the solution. The other half being to CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING! Stop all the bullshit pork! President Obama needs to live up to his promises and do as he said and "Line by line cut the pork spending from Washington!" He rushed this bill through so fast without making any changes saying that he didn't have time because of the urgency for action. Well then why don't many of the things in the bill take effect for up to 10 years?? When the stats of MA is spending MILLIONS of dollars of their share for the "Edward Kennedy" library and memorial... that is CRAP and in NO WAY helps our economy.
Except that the library and memorial will both give people permanent jobs.
That influx of money will set a precedent that will open the state of for major budget shortfalls in the future. You may not be able to see that, but it does because where does it end? A few people are eligible for the extended unemployment but then everyone else is s**t out of luck??
Those people still do not pay income taxes and that is a hand out PERIOD! If they got that money but it was taken out of their Social Security or Medicare taxes THEN it would be a refund. But as it stands no, it is simply a hand out and nothing more.
There are so many better ways they could create jobs then opening a memorial and library for Ted Kennedy! Hell if you really want to honor him, just build a BIG distillery shaped like a car on a bridge... That would fit his legacy VERY well and still create more jobs!
That influx of money will set a precedent that will open the state of for major budget shortfalls in the future. You may not be able to see that, but it does because where does it end? A few people are eligible for the extended unemployment but then everyone else is s**t out of luck??
Again, it is the responsibility of the states to manage their own budgets. If they choose to decline help for people affected by the worst recession since WWII, because they can't trust themselves to back it off when that recession is behind us, then that's their problem. As a voter in those states, I would consider that an admission by the governor that he/she cannot manage a budget.
PuroFreak:
Those people still do not pay income taxes and that is a hand out PERIOD! If they got that money but it was taken out of their Social Security or Medicare taxes THEN it would be a refund. But as it stands no, it is simply a hand out and nothing more.
SS Tax and Medicare Tax are income taxes.
PuroFreak:
There are so many better ways they could create jobs then opening a memorial and library for Ted Kennedy! Hell if you really want to honor him, just build a BIG distillery shaped like a car on a bridge... That would fit his legacy VERY well and still create more jobs!
A lovely message to send to our youth, indeed. I never cared for the man, but he has been a political mainstay in that region, and in our nation. I have no problem with choosing to memorialize significant figures, if it is the choice of the people. I do, however, think that a recession is not the time to be spending money to build a memorial to someone who hasn't even passed.
Except that the library and memorial will both give people permanent jobs.
maybe a dozen or so jobs. that is hardly a dent considering the number of annual salaries worth of tax dollars it would take to build that library and memorial.
PuroFreak:
if you really want to honor him, just build a BIG distillery shaped like a car on a bridge... That would fit his legacy VERY well and still create more jobs!
Except that the library and memorial will both give people permanent jobs.
maybe a dozen or so jobs. that is hardly a dent considering the number of annual salaries worth of tax dollars it would take to build that library and memorial.
I didn't say I agreed with it. I was merely refuting the claim that those two projects would create no jobs.
Except that the library and memorial will both give people permanent jobs.
maybe a dozen or so jobs. that is hardly a dent considering the number of annual salaries worth of tax dollars it would take to build that library and memorial.
I didn't say I agreed with it. I was merely refuting the claim that those two projects would create no jobs.
I didn't say it would creat no jobs though. Once AGAIN you misquote me, I said it wouldn't help our economy. And in the big picture, no it wouldn't help at all.
That influx of money will set a precedent that will open the state of for major budget shortfalls in the future. You may not be able to see that, but it does because where does it end? A few people are eligible for the extended unemployment but then everyone else is s**t out of luck??
Again, it is the responsibility of the states to manage their own budgets. If they choose to decline help for people affected by the worst recession since WWII, because they can't trust themselves to back it off when that recession is behind us, then that's their problem. As a voter in those states, I would consider that an admission by the governor that he/she cannot manage a budget.
PuroFreak:
Those people still do not pay income taxes and that is a hand out PERIOD! If they got that money but it was taken out of their Social Security or Medicare taxes THEN it would be a refund. But as it stands no, it is simply a hand out and nothing more.
SS Tax and Medicare Tax are income taxes.
PuroFreak:
There are so many better ways they could create jobs then opening a memorial and library for Ted Kennedy! Hell if you really want to honor him, just build a BIG distillery shaped like a car on a bridge... That would fit his legacy VERY well and still create more jobs!
A lovely message to send to our youth, indeed. I never cared for the man, but he has been a political mainstay in that region, and in our nation. I have no problem with choosing to memorialize significant figures, if it is the choice of the people. I do, however, think that a recession is not the time to be spending money to build a memorial to someone who hasn't even passed.
Thats funny, because I'm a HELL of a lot more likely to vote for someone how doesn't want to do more to make people dependant of government... Just a thought on my part but I like the idea of people working and taking care of themselves... I know that is probably such a silly notion to you though.
Ok, SS tx and Medicare Taxes DON'T GIVE REFUNDS! If you took the money our of that persons account and sent it to them then yes, that would be a refund, but as it stands it's just another **** handout.
Just a thought on my part but I like the idea of people working and taking care of themselves... I know that is probably such a silly notion to you though.
It is.. I take care of myself without really working
Seriously, though.. look at the cost of healthcare. It is not affordable for anybody that doesn't make an incredible amount of money. I can speak from experience on this when I changed jobs and took a contract to work at the bank. Making well over six figures per year, my out-of-pocket costs would have been nearly half my salary. There are many gainfully employed individuals making less than half of what I make. So doing the math, they could spend nothing on food and shelter, and still not have enough for healthcare. Yet they are working, but in our society that is not enough.
PuroFreak:
Ok, SS tx and Medicare Taxes DON'T GIVE REFUNDS! If you took the money our of that persons account and sent it to them then yes, that would be a refund, but as it stands it's just another **** handout.
Medicare isn't an individual "account" for a person.
Just a thought on my part but I like the idea of people working and taking care of themselves... I know that is probably such a silly notion to you though.
It is.. I take care of myself without really working
Seriously, though.. look at the cost of healthcare. It is not affordable for anybody that doesn't make an incredible amount of money. I can speak from experience on this when I changed jobs and took a contract to work at the bank. Making well over six figures per year, my out-of-pocket costs would have been nearly half my salary. There are many gainfully employed individuals making less than half of what I make. So doing the math, they could spend nothing on food and shelter, and still not have enough for healthcare. Yet they are working, but in our society that is not enough.
PuroFreak:
Ok, SS tx and Medicare Taxes DON'T GIVE REFUNDS! If you took the money our of that persons account and sent it to them then yes, that would be a refund, but as it stands it's just another **** handout.
Medicare isn't an individual "account" for a person.
Once again, it's still a hand out... You still haven't said anything to prove that wrong.
No, because when you cut taxes you are giving back money that the government took from us.... But if you give money back to people that didn't pay Federal Income tax other than medicare and Social security then it is a hand out. That money is still in the Medicare funds and those people will still be able to draw off of that according to what they put into it. It is basically a welfare program at that point.
No, because when you cut taxes you are giving back money that the government took from us.... But if you give money back to people that didn't pay Federal Income tax other than medicare and Social security then it is a hand out. That money is still in the Medicare funds and those people will still be able to draw off of that according to what they put into it. It is basically a welfare program at that point.
But Medicare is money that the government took from the incomes of those people
No, because when you cut taxes you are giving back money that the government took from us.... But if you give money back to people that didn't pay Federal Income tax other than medicare and Social security then it is a hand out. That money is still in the Medicare funds and those people will still be able to draw off of that according to what they put into it. It is basically a welfare program at that point.
But Medicare is money that the government took from the incomes of those people
Yes, but that money is still in the Medicare fund for them to use at a later date. Even if it is not a individual account, they can still draw from it when they come to that point. That makes it a hand out.
Comments
those jerks...
The refusal of both of you to act according to the majority opinion of qualified experts, rather than your own hypotheses, is another example of your cognitive dissonance. Have a good day.
i am actually in favor of green renewable energy... but not switching over to it by force. the only problem i have here is that it takes away liberties of people to tax us in the name of global warming...
look a few posts up. i may have explained it better there.
As for getting money directly into the hands of people who will spend it to pay bills, buy food, etc., that's what a lot of the money in the stimulus bill does. The biggest chunk is extended unemployment benefits. That and food stamps are the most efficient uses of government dollars during a recession, because the money is going to people who will have to spend it; they can't afford to stick it savings or pay down debt.
Which is why it's so completely perverse that some conservative governors are refusing the unemployment money (or at least talking as if they will).
Besides, I don't know why you'd dislike the bill if you favor tax cuts. Forty percent of it is tax cuts. (Frankly, that's one of the problems with it, but it's weird to hear conservatives complaining about it.)
58 percent spending and 42 percent tax cuts
Let's see. Somebody wrote and passed a tax law that said tax rates would be lower for a few years, and then they would go up again. Obama didn't write that law; it was the GOP. If you remember, they started off with a bill containing permanent tax cuts, but they couldn't get enough Republicans to go along with it. Seems they were worried it would create huge long-term deficits, which is the same concern Obama has now.
And yes, the democrats proposed this as a 58-42 split, but most of the 42% is spending under the banner of tax cuts that will never actually be passed on to the actual citizens or businesses of our country. Here is where I disagree with that number: That number includes giving "rebates" to thousands of people WHO PAY NO TAXES TO BEGIN WITH!!! That is NOT a tax break my friend, that is a hand out.
Now along to your last part I agree with you, keeping the tax cuts with the current rate of spending would create an ENORMOUS deficit... (like we are going to avoid that anyway.) Tax cuts are only HALF of the solution. The other half being to CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING! Stop all the bullshit pork! President Obama needs to live up to his promises and do as he said and "Line by line cut the pork spending from Washington!" He rushed this bill through so fast without making any changes saying that he didn't have time because of the urgency for action. Well then why don't many of the things in the bill take effect for up to 10 years?? When the stats of MA is spending MILLIONS of dollars of their share for the "Edward Kennedy" library and memorial... that is CRAP and in NO WAY helps our economy.
Those people still do not pay income taxes and that is a hand out PERIOD! If they got that money but it was taken out of their Social Security or Medicare taxes THEN it would be a refund. But as it stands no, it is simply a hand out and nothing more.
There are so many better ways they could create jobs then opening a memorial and library for Ted Kennedy! Hell if you really want to honor him, just build a BIG distillery shaped like a car on a bridge... That would fit his legacy VERY well and still create more jobs!
Ok, SS tx and Medicare Taxes DON'T GIVE REFUNDS! If you took the money our of that persons account and sent it to them then yes, that would be a refund, but as it stands it's just another **** handout.
Seriously, though.. look at the cost of healthcare. It is not affordable for anybody that doesn't make an incredible amount of money. I can speak from experience on this when I changed jobs and took a contract to work at the bank. Making well over six figures per year, my out-of-pocket costs would have been nearly half my salary. There are many gainfully employed individuals making less than half of what I make. So doing the math, they could spend nothing on food and shelter, and still not have enough for healthcare. Yet they are working, but in our society that is not enough. Medicare isn't an individual "account" for a person.