Magox

As if you don't know what his reply will be.

ISTP. whatever that means

When I was reading SOB's comment, I knew that something wasn't right with what he had said. Technically he's right, but in actual real world practice, he wasn't. http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_607.pdf In other words, and in Layman's terms, states can and usually do get around the "time limits" for Welfare.

These things would obviously have to be worked out... I think for the most part, we are talking about a framework for some sort of welfare reform.

Didn't see this till right now.

Fred Davis I believe is still available.

He was near the top of my wish list for this year's FA

Which is why I used the word rationally. Making an argument of aggregate totals to justify the progressivity of the code, from my view is not rational. Relative % of income is the best way to measure how progressive a tax code is.

I understand...My approach is a little less hard line, I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to those that are new recipients rather than the habitual moochers.

It's not that difficult Chef. You know there are these things called records, ya, it's pretty cool, they get to record actual data in these neat things called computers and you can check out what you recorded. WAAAAY COOL MAN! So my view is cut some slack by helping keep retain dignity for those that happened to fall into a bad situation that are now on "welfare". But after a while, if you remain on Welfare for a set period of time, then you would be required to either work in the menial jobs that you suggested or enter job re training programs. Details would have to be worked and tweaked, but that would be the general outline of the plan.

Now juxtapose that to the bottom 50% 1981: the average rate paid 6.62% 1982: 6.1% 1987: 5.09% which is over a 10% drop from the year before... (Of course the tax reform act of 1986 which changed the definition of AGI had nothing to do with it, naaaa) 1988: 5:06% 1991: 4:62% 1993: 4:29% 2000: 4:6% For Top 1% 27.45% 2001: (Bush era begins) 4:09% for bottom 50% ( 13% drop from the previous year) Top 1% paid 27.5% 2002: 3.21% for bottom 50% ( over 20% drop from the previous year) Top 1% paid 27.25% 2003 2.95% for bottom 50% ( over 8% drop from the previous year) The Top 1 % paid 24.31% 2008 2.59% for bottom 50% The Top 1% paid 23.27% 2009 1.85% for bottom 50% The Top 1% paid 24.01% In 2000, what the top 1% paid relative to what the bottom 50% paid as far as a percentage of income paid in Federal taxes was 596% higher. By 2003, what the top 1% paid relative to what the bottom 50% paid as far as a percentage of income paid in Federal taxes JUMPED to 824% higher. in 2009, what the top 2% paid relative to what the bottom 50% paid as far as a percentage of income paid in Federal taxes SOARED to 1297% higher. We're not talking total aggregate, we are talking PERCENTAGE. That's what we call comparisons of relativity. The data is clear. The tax code has gotten more Progressive, specially ever since the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts was the most progressive act we've seen over the past 30 years. There is no way you can rationally spin those numbers. Even if you attempt to spin it, it still doesn't take away the fact that the US tax code is much more progressive than before the Bush tax cuts. Main reason being is become of the child tax credits incentives like child care and income tax credits for the poor have been greatly expanded.

I understand what you are saying, but there are many people that are on welfare in a transitory basis. From my view, if you are there in the short-term, I don't believe you should be mandated to perform these tasks, but if it's someone who is consistently there, then I have no problem with this.

The more I think about this signing, the more I am believing he was signed to fill a specific role, which was to cover TE's. I don't believe he will be an every down LB, but I can envision him having an important role to what this defense will be looking to accomplish moving forward.

Not only should there be drug testing, but there should be strings attached to welfare. There should be a job re training program offered by the government to help place them into areas of where demand for jobs is expected to be, if they willfully decide to not participate, then benefits should be cut.

I don't see a deal getting done. If it did, it would need a good mixture of the two parties to vote for it. It would be a rare instance of having both parties with roughly the same amount of votes from each side, voting on the measure. Real Fiscal conservative hawks like Coburn would probably vote for it, providing enough cover to pick some conservative votes off. However, I just don't see enough Liberals voting on reforming the entitlements, unless Obama really puts the pressure on them. In any case, if we did do a "grand bargain" it would probably look like that.

They are both markers. The house set theirs, and the Democrats will soon do the same. From there, negotiations begin. That's how it works. Unfortunately, the gulf between the two, from my perspective is too large. So I don't see anything getting done. If a deal does get done, it will look something like this: 1) Some Revenues through the closing of loopholes etc. Most likely maxed out at no more than $500B 2) Reforming the entitlements. Chained CPI, means testing and eliminating "waste" 3) Some Defense budget cuts 4) Some sort of modest welfare reform Obamacare and Medicaid will go unscathed.

I disagree... Let's face it, both sides won't get what they want, the likely hood of a grand bargain happening is pretty remote. One side is pretty far to the right, the other side is simply retarded. Mars, Venus

This really isn't a difficult argument to make. This is a men are from Mars and women are from Venus case here. You believe his budget is ridiculous. Ok, fine I accept that. I believe that the Senate Democrats deficit reduction package of an additional trillion dollars of new taxes, 100B of new stimulus spending, and not addressing and reforming the Entitlements, which any sane rational person agrees is the main driver of our debt moving forward, is even more ridiculous. In other words, liberals aren't serious about reducing the Debt.

You do know that you are talking to a troll?

What the hell are you talking about? You aren't making any sense, all this is is a bunch of gibberish. We are talking about the progressivity of the US tax code. Who cares that they make more? We are talking about the progressiveness of the US tax code. The top 1%, 5% and 10% have been paying a higher % of their income than the bottom 50% and that number is continuing to climb. Seriously, are you this dense that you don't understand? Did you check out the link? If you were talking about the aggregate total, then you would have a point, of course they pay more because they make more. But that isn't what we are talking about. Seriously, I don't get how you don't understand this point. Also to your second point, again more gibberish. Fine, go back to before the recession, check out the numbers from 2001-2007... The findings are the same. It's right there, anyone who decides to click on the link will see it for themselves, the US tax code is becoming more progressive by the day. I guess this is how it is like to talk to a brick wall.

Nope, wrong again. That's not what I'm claiming. Look at the tax data I provided. The % that the "rich" are paying is higher relative to the bottom 50%, as a percentage. I'm not talking just about the total % of total revenues collected, but what they are paying as a % relative to the bottom 50%. Back in 1980, the top 1% paid 600% higher than the bottom 50%, ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. Now, that number has soared to 1300% higher than the bottom 50%. Check the data Here is a recap of post #25 in this thread http://taxfoundation...come-tax-data-0

That was freaking hilarious.

It's a waste of time for you because you don't have any substance behind what you say. And when asked to defend your comments, you deflect, and when you do say something, all you come up with is empty platitudes and talking points. Now that you've been debunked on your claim about the tax code, which proved what you said was a crock of ****. Explain to us in detail how the tax code is allowing more money to "flow to the top"? Keep in mind, here are the facts: http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0 That is data compiled from the IRS Enough of the vapid talking points, Now back up what you say with factual data

That's a great answer. I'm convinced.