How to Make tax Cuts Permanent?

[Tiger Al 0]

Actually, Al, all of those problems can be handled out of the goodness of our hearts.  Through churches, philanthropies, families, friends and "outreach" organizations all this would be taken care of.  If I had even 50% the other half of my income that goes to the govt., I would have a lot to give to charities and such.

But, instead, that money is taken from me by way of the police power of govt. and is wasted, squandered and spent on USELESS programs for the most part instead of being used to help relieve those problems you speak of.

But, nice try with all of those emotional appeals.  They don't work on me.

I think about those issues logically and try to put the "feelings" aside.  Try it sometime.

Do you honestly think that if all of the so-called useless programs were eliminated tomorrow and everyone got an increase of $XXX that they would, in return, donate to churches, philanthropies and "outreach" organizations? No. So, what then do we do about those people who truly depend on government assistance simply to survive? We'll cut the programs that you've deemed useless (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, WIC, public housing, after school programs, unemployment compensation, job training, public education, etc.) and now we have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who've had the rug pulled out from under them and you think that everyone is going to willingly donate their extra money to help these folks? Remember, these are the people who are lazy and won't help themselves and are in the predicament they're in because they chose to be there. And now you're going to voluntarily help them because you're being taxed less? No you won't. You and the other 95% of us will keep the extra $100, $200 or $500 dollars a paycheck and invest it or buy a new TV or a new car. Take a vacation, pay off a loan or go back to college. Maybe you WOULD fall in that 5% that would actually donate the extra money to charity, but that wouldn't be nearly a drop in the bucket to replace what was lost.

What happens to the people who depended on that help? Do we really care? Should we? After all, it's their fault, right?

Why should I ignore my feelings, my emotions? They were given to me by God to use in conjunction with my mind and my body and so were yours. They're what propel us to action or paralyze us to do nothing. When dealing with the human element you must listen to your head as well as your heart. That's God's way.

[DKW 86 7,866]

Al, if you want to interject God into it then you have to interject him the right way.

If you give to charity to make yourself feel good, guess what, God couldnt care less. Do it, but dont expect anything to amount to any "Good" in your favor. The Bible is pretty exact about giving, but it is giving to God.

I know I am not clear here but hear me out.

Giving should reflect GOd in your life. If an atheist gives to charity, does it matter to God? NO. If a agnostic gives to charity does God care? NO.

So then, giving to charity by an atheistic Govt doing good works really doesnt matter to God at all. Not one iota, jot, nor tittle.

So leave the God factor out of this with welfare, SS, etc. For the most part, He could care less. How nmany do you think could really careless about the poor if their tax dollars werent being used to support them? I submit that getting more individuals into helping the Poor IS GOD'S WAY!

I know this sounds harsh, but giving that does not honor the Lord, well it dont mean much. That does not mean that all giving must be done only thru a church, etc.

BTW, Prior to The Great Depression, churches and charities DID care for the rest of the poor. I submit that the govt went into it to help, a noble endeavor, but as usual has destroyed the real good intent by its total mismanagement.

Today, (I recently worked at a Rescue Mission for my church) The govt largesse just gives some enough cash to stay drug dependent, and co-dependent, if you will. They do not do the personal attention and help that these folks really need. The govt is so large they cannot do the really meaningful one-on-one work that is best done by churches, synagogues, and yes, mosques. They, WE, have built a dysfunctional system using a good heart and good intentions that actually destroys the better part of the people it is supposed to help.

My answer to this, is to kick the now lazy Christians, Jews, and yes, even Muslims, in the buttt to get back to doing the work God and Christ called us to do and get rid of the halfhearted effort by uncaring bureacrats that couldnt give a rat's patootie if they are doing any good at all.

[Tiger Al 0]

I basically disagree with most everything you said, David. Charity of any kind performed by anyone is an act of love and that's supposed to be what we're about. The Ten Commandments are about two things: Love of God and love of others.

It sounded like you thought I meant that to give was to gain chits with God and that's not what I meant. Nor did I mean that the government is, or is supposed to be, a religious agent in its' work. Because our government, as its' own entity, doesn't recognize or promote a religion doesn't mean that the individuals involved in it aren't free to believe whatever they want about God.

I understand that the social work done by the government isn't perfect. I also understand that it isn't meant to be nor can it be. Our social programs are only meant to provide those people in need with specific aspects of a larger picture. Our churches do the same thing. It isn't an either/or proposition. It takes a village, if you will. I realize you don't like the image that conjures up, but I'd ask that you be bigger than that and consider what it means. Part of the village would include government. There are some things that only the concerted effort of government and its' resources can address. Part of the village is church. Part of it is your neighbors and co-workers. Schools, too.

When we as a nation do God's work, whether through the power of government or the church, we're doing the right thing. If the system needs work, then let's fix it instead of trying to destroy it.

[War Eagle 96 10]

You and the other 95% of us will keep the extra $100, $200 or $500 dollars a paycheck and invest it or buy a new TV or a new car. Take a vacation, pay off a loan or go back to college.

GEEEEEZEE!

Can you imagine the jobs that would create! Can you possibly fathom what that would do for everyone! That would create a shift upward for everyone econmically in an earthshattering way.

You said it and you don't even see it.

Sad.

[DKW 86 7,866]

I understand that the social work done by the government isn't perfect. I also understand that it isn't meant to be nor can it be. Our social programs are only meant to provide those people in need with specific aspects of a larger picture. Our churches do the same thing. It isn't an either/or proposition.

Al, when you break it down tho, in the real world, it does end up being an either or proposition. The folks I deal with, and dealt with, in the Mission would either take the God route, straighten up, repent, and get thier lives together, OR take the money from the welfare tit, run to the local 7-11 buy some beer, wine, or drugs or whatever and get stoned and start the cycle over again and again.

I had one women tell m e after living on welfare with her two kids, she thought that welfare had "rurnt me." It was so hard to get on, that she would turn down jobs rather than risk getting a reduction in benefits. It was truly sad, years before, she had been the best employee I had working for me.

But hey, if it makes a few of the NE and Hollywood Limousine Liberals feel better about themselves then hey, let's do it.

[Tiger Al 0]

I understand that the social work done by the government isn't perfect. I also understand that it isn't meant to be nor can it be. Our social programs are only meant to provide those people in need with specific aspects of a larger picture. Our churches do the same thing. It isn't an either/or proposition.

Al, when you break it down tho, in the real world, it does end up being an either or proposition. The folks I deal with, and dealt with, in the Mission would either take the God route, straighten up, repent, and get thier lives together, OR take the money from the welfare tit, run to the local 7-11 buy some beer, wine, or drugs or whatever and get stoned and start the cycle over again and again.

I had one women tell m e after living on welfare with her two kids, she thought that welfare had "rurnt me." It was so hard to get on, that she would turn down jobs rather than risk getting a reduction in benefits. It was truly sad, years before, she had been the best employee I had working for me.

But hey, if it makes a few of the NE and Hollywood Limousine Liberals feel better about themselves then hey, let's do it.

You seem to be locked into this mindset that entitlement recipients are, by and large, addicts of some sort or another just waiting for the eagle to fly so they can go get high. You also seem to be locked into the mindset that "good Christian folk" are always fine upstanding people who always do what's best for themselves and their families because they've got Jesus. Those are stereotypes. It's not that black and white. It is more complex than that and by allowing yourself to view the lives of these people according to those tidy little constructs misses the boat in my opinion. Maybe it makes you feel like you've got it all figured out, but it's not that simple.

Again, the system needs to be tweaked, as it was a few years ago, but to scrap in the belief that those in the private sector can and will do a better job is wishful thinking.

[Tiger Al 0]

You and the other 95% of us will keep the extra $100, $200 or $500 dollars a paycheck and invest it or buy a new TV or a new car. Take a vacation, pay off a loan or go back to college.

GEEEEEZEE!

Can you imagine the jobs that would create! Can you possibly fathom what that would do for everyone! That would create a shift upward for everyone econmically in an earthshattering way.

You said it and you don't even see it.

Sad.

You would lose as many jobs as you create when the government starts laying off employees. Or, did you think that they would all keep their jobs despite the massive decrease in revenues coming in?

[TrueBlue72 0]

All those government jobs that you and the liberals love, produce absolutely nothing! They are simply another way of redistributing the money earned by those who do produce to those who don't. Putting that money to use buying products, would have a far greater positive impact than the negative of the government jobs lost.

[Tiger Al 0]

All those government jobs that you and the liberals love, produce absolutely nothing! They are simply another way of redistributing the money earned by those who do produce to those who don't. Putting that money to use buying products, would have a far greater positive impact than the negative of the government jobs lost.

OK, so by your plan we cut entitlement programs and tens of thousands of jobs so we can buy more things. How long will it be before the streets are filled with millions of people who have no food, shelter or a forseeable future? BTW, this sounds vaguely like the scenario before the French Revolution. Shall we let them eat cake, too?

[DKW 86 7,866]

I understand that the social work done by the government isn't perfect. I also understand that it isn't meant to be nor can it be. Our social programs are only meant to provide those people in need with specific aspects of a larger picture. Our churches do the same thing. It isn't an either/or proposition.

Al, when you break it down tho, in the real world, it does end up being an either or proposition. The folks I deal with, and dealt with, in the Mission would either take the God route, straighten up, repent, and get thier lives together, OR take the money from the welfare tit, run to the local 7-11 buy some beer, wine, or drugs or whatever and get stoned and start the cycle over again and again.

I had one women tell m e after living on welfare with her two kids, she thought that welfare had "rurnt me." It was so hard to get on, that she would turn down jobs rather than risk getting a reduction in benefits. It was truly sad, years before, she had been the best employee I had working for me.

But hey, if it makes a few of the NE and Hollywood Limousine Liberals feel better about themselves then hey, let's do it.

You seem to be locked into this mindset that entitlement recipients are, by and large, addicts of some sort or another just waiting for the eagle to fly so they can go get high. You also seem to be locked into the mindset that "good Christian folk" are always fine upstanding people who always do what's best for themselves and their families because they've got Jesus. Those are stereotypes. It's not that black and white. It is more complex than that and by allowing yourself to view the lives of these people according to those tidy little constructs misses the boat in my opinion. Maybe it makes you feel like you've got it all figured out, but it's not that simple.

Again, the system needs to be tweaked, as it was a few years ago, but to scrap in the belief that those in the private sector can and will do a better job is wishful thinking.

No Al, those are not my constrructs, they are insights taken from being there.

I have never said that ALL Christians are great folks. But the great ones do care enough to get involved in this.

Again, the system needs to be tweaked, as it was a few years ago, but to scrap in the belief that those in the private sector can and will do a better job is wishful thinking.

Al, you have officially lost your good standing with the left. Havent you been taught over and over that everything Liberals do is perfect and therefore cannot be criticized ever, by anyone? Watch out Al, the black helicopters WILL be coming after you now.

Tweaking? Hilarious. Bush and Kennedy tweaked Education and all you hear about it now is that it is a failure after only two years in effect and we need to go back to he old system that needed to be tweaked in the first place. No AL, Liberals never want to tto do anything other than throw more money and hire more non-productive workers that will then implemement the same failed programs, just on a bigger scale.

And so it goes. Liberals only want to fix things they arent inloved in, "Health Care." They demand we leave alone something they have already screwed up, like "Education." Where we, the US, are ranked 11th overall, 14th in Math, 18th in Sciences.

Insanity: Doing something over an over again and expecting different results.

[War Eagle 96 10]

All those government jobs that you and the liberals love, produce absolutely nothing!  They are simply another way of redistributing the money earned by those who do produce to those who don't.  Putting that money to use buying products, would have a far greater positive impact than the negative of the government jobs lost.

OK, so by your plan we cut entitlement programs and tens of thousands of jobs so we can buy more things. How long will it be before the streets are filled with millions of people who have no food, shelter or a forseeable future? BTW, this sounds vaguely like the scenario before the French Revolution. Shall we let them eat cake, too?

This is why liberals lose. You have a negative view on what Americans are able to do. You believe "if we don't help you" you can't make it. How smarmy and arrogant can you be?

I believe if left to their own devices, given an oppty., Americans will make do and succeed...by and large.

You believe that, without govt., people in America will be lost and will fail.

More sadness.

[Donutboy 0]

All those government jobs that you and the liberals love, produce absolutely nothing! They are simply another way of redistributing the money earned by those who do produce to those who don't. Putting that money to use buying products, would have a far greater positive impact than the negative of the government jobs lost.

Actually TrueBlue, the number of federal jobs was cut during the Clinton administration. Bush has reversed that trend and has created more federal jobs and more federal agencies.

[AUloggerhead 2,507]

Actually TrueBlue, the number of federal jobs was cut during the Clinton administration. Bush has reversed that trend and has created more federal jobs and more federal agencies.

Donutboy, Bush is guilty of federalizing all airport screeners and creating a Dept of Homeland Security in direct response to 9/11/01. I believe this is a one-time occurence due to an extraordinary event, though. Hardly constitutes a "trend."

Could you provide a link that shows where clinton lobbied for & championed an actual decrease in government employees? I'm not saying it couldn't have happened. It just sounds so unlike him -- unless maybe it was in the Defense Department. Link please.

[Tiger Al 0]

All those government jobs that you and the liberals love, produce absolutely nothing!  They are simply another way of redistributing the money earned by those who do produce to those who don't.  Putting that money to use buying products, would have a far greater positive impact than the negative of the government jobs lost.

OK, so by your plan we cut entitlement programs and tens of thousands of jobs so we can buy more things. How long will it be before the streets are filled with millions of people who have no food, shelter or a forseeable future? BTW, this sounds vaguely like the scenario before the French Revolution. Shall we let them eat cake, too?

This is why liberals lose. You have a negative view on what Americans are able to do. You believe "if we don't help you" you can't make it. How smarmy and arrogant can you be?

I believe if left to their own devices, given an oppty., Americans will make do and succeed...by and large.

You believe that, without govt., people in America will be lost and will fail.

More sadness.

I don't see it as negative so much as it is realistic. You want to cut incoming revenues in the form of taxes. OK, so obviously you are going to have to cut services. That's what you want to do, right? You cut the services and you no longer have a need for the workers who were administering those services. They're fired. So you're left with a few hundred thousand people jobless coupled with the millions who've lost their benefits and have little to no money coming in.

You believe that the rest of us who have a few more dollars in our paycheck will just kick it in to private companies that spring up overnight to help these people with whatever it is that they need help with. As I said before, somebody who has been working paycheck to paycheck isn't going to part with the extra $100 that appears in their check, even if it's to put it in their new privatized SS account. And they certainly aren't going to give $10 or $20 to the new privatized food stamp office.

So, yes, you'll create some new jobs but that'll be offset by the gov't. jobs lost and the probable ensueing chaos that will occur. And in a few years all those people who should've planned for their retirement or disability are gonna start knocking on the door because they have nothing. The ones that don't make it that far will have made one positive contribution, though. The will have hastened the need for more prisons to be built pretty quickly.

[DKW 86 7,866]

All those government jobs that you and the liberals love, produce absolutely nothing!  They are simply another way of redistributing the money earned by those who do produce to those who don't.  Putting that money to use buying products, would have a far greater positive impact than the negative of the government jobs lost.

Actually TrueBlue, the number of federal jobs was cut during the Clinton administration. Bush has reversed that trend and has created more federal jobs and more federal agencies.

Donut, that is nothing but TOTAL 100 % LIE. The only org. Clinton cut was the US Military he hired like a drunk sailor in a cat house otherwise.

[DKW 86 7,866]

All those government jobs that you and the liberals love, produce absolutely nothing!  They are simply another way of redistributing the money earned by those who do produce to those who don't.  Putting that money to use buying products, would have a far greater positive impact than the negative of the government jobs lost.

OK, so by your plan we cut entitlement programs and tens of thousands of jobs so we can buy more things. How long will it be before the streets are filled with millions of people who have no food, shelter or a forseeable future? BTW, this sounds vaguely like the scenario before the French Revolution. Shall we let them eat cake, too?

This is why liberals lose. You have a negative view on what Americans are able to do. You believe "if we don't help you" you can't make it. How smarmy and arrogant can you be?

I believe if left to their own devices, given an oppty., Americans will make do and succeed...by and large.

You believe that, without govt., people in America will be lost and will fail.

More sadness.

I don't see it as negative so much as it is realistic. You want to cut incoming revenues in the form of taxes. OK, so obviously you are going to have to cut services. That's what you want to do, right? You cut the services and you no longer have a need for the workers who were administering those services. They're fired. So you're left with a few hundred thousand people jobless coupled with the millions who've lost their benefits and have little to no money coming in.

You believe that the rest of us who have a few more dollars in our paycheck will just kick it in to private companies that spring up overnight to help these people with whatever it is that they need help with. As I said before, somebody who has been working paycheck to paycheck isn't going to part with the extra $100 that appears in their check, even if it's to put it in their new privatized SS account. And they certainly aren't going to give $10 or $20 to the new privatized food stamp office.

So, yes, you'll create some new jobs but that'll be offset by the gov't. jobs lost and the probable ensueing chaos that will occur. And in a few years all those people who should've planned for their retirement or disability are gonna start knocking on the door because they have nothing. The ones that don't make it that far will have made one positive contribution, though. The will have hastened the need for more prisons to be built pretty quickly.

Al, we have been "kickin in a few more dollars" for decades. It is time we get a Dollars worth for every single dollar spent by the Feds. Why is that so freakin hard for the Dems to understand?

I don't see it as negative so much as it is realistic. You want to cut incoming revenues in the form of taxes. OK, so obviously you are going to have to cut services.

One more time Al, you could cut the waste in the Fed Govt and cut taxes and still not cut one prgram and in fact probably increase the positives.