|
Post by John Doe on Mar 23, 2017 9:38:29 GMT -7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 14:37:50 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by John Doe on Mar 24, 2017 8:39:56 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Mar 24, 2017 9:48:14 GMT -7
With less than 70% of all doctors accepting Medicaid, and 30% of doctors not accepting any new Medicaid patients, it's just a matter of time when Medicaid will not be a viable option.
|
|
|
Post by badman on Mar 27, 2017 16:14:05 GMT -7
With less than 70% of all doctors accepting Medicaid, and 30% of doctors not accepting any new Medicaid patients, it's just a matter of time when Medicaid will not be a viable option. A good measure of those folks receiving Medicaid needed a lawyer to gain those benefits. Most lawyers are liberal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 18:39:40 GMT -7
And Republicans would love for programs that help the "poor" to fail. But instead of attacking the people that are the result of the problem, why don't Republicans want to try and solve the problem? It's easier to remain ignorant and cast blame?
a whole 55% of this country makes at or under $30K a year and that is gross pay. When you start taking taxes, medical, deductibles, rent/mortgage, food, clothes, gas, car insurance, electric, water, trash, medication, repairs for car or home, sewage if needed and just stuff that is required in life, how much money do you have left? Would we say that is irresponsible to not save money when you have no money to save?
My mother worked at Walmart for about 30 years. She made about $30K a year. And after her cuts for taxes and "benefits" she had about $18K a year to live on. I'm sorry, if you have $18K a year to live on, your poor and there is no other way around it. And then the right might have you believe you are not trying hard enough. And oddly, the main cause of divorce in this country is a spouse not believing they get the attention they need. So, make people work more, cause divorce and create children without a parent so that the state can make money off child support and rob the already poor father (in most cases). Father falls behind because he cannot afford to support himself and pay his bills. But don't worry, the for profit prison system will teach him a lesson. But wait, he now has a felony and no one will hire him. That's okay, the for profit prison system will keep teaching him a lesson. And this is from the party of the family, least thats what they say.
Then we give huge tax breaks to the rich so they have a lower effective tax rate then the working poor. But hate the poor because they are a bunch of mooches and they need to try harder and they should not get government handouts... Oh no... How dare a poor person eat or God forbid a person have decent medical so they can continue to be a slave to the rich and keep them roads paved, oh no... Because we are the liberty and family party and oh, we also believe in an invisible man in the sky that tells us in a book he wrote to help the poor, but we don't need to listen to that. Instead we can pick and choose what to follow. We even killed some kids the other day using our military and we wonder why other people hate us.
The poor are lazy scum and the people we terrorize in the world are evil Muslims. Everyone should just bow to our will because we are the party of family and liberty. Yhea, okay, if you say so.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 27, 2017 19:47:50 GMT -7
a whole 55% of this country makes at or under $30K a year and that is gross pay. Really? According to BLS data and using this calculator, $41.4K was earned by 55% of this country for 2016. That is individual income, not household dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/Now you mentioned only what your mother brought in. That amount may have been the household income too if she was the sole wage earner. But the 54.22th percentile household in 2014 made between $60K and $65K. (US Census Bureau figures for 2014) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 20:30:38 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 28, 2017 5:21:09 GMT -7
www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2015Mine from older data. But this is the newest from SS earnings I can get. Still, 50% of households and my point still stands. And you include that two people should work thereby creating what I said above. Your data subjects only income subject to Federal income taxes. My son's disability income, my disability compensation and the vast majority of my pay when I was deployed in a combat zone years back isn't subject to Federal income taxes and not reported on a W-2.. 50% of the households make a goodly bit more than your dower note implies. Your $30,000 applies to less than 40% using the calculator already provided. BTW, I didn't write that two people should work. Those are your words. Now poverty doesn't cause divorce. If so, Hollywood folks, governors, physicians and lawyers would have an almost non-existant devorce rate. Our president doesn't fit this trend either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 11:36:26 GMT -7
www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2015Mine from older data. But this is the newest from SS earnings I can get. Still, 50% of households and my point still stands. And you include that two people should work thereby creating what I said above. Your data subjects only income subject to Federal income taxes. My son's disability income, my disability compensation and the vast majority of my pay when I was deployed in a combat zone years back isn't subject to Federal income taxes and not reported on a W-2.. 50% of the households make a goodly bit more than your dower note implies. Your $30,000 applies to less than 40% using the calculator already provided. BTW, I didn't write that two people should work. Those are your words. Now poverty doesn't cause divorce. If so, Hollywood folks, governors, physicians and lawyers would have an almost non-existant devorce rate. Our president doesn't fit this trend either. I didn't say poverty causes divorce. I said lack of being there does and that is proven. If one person has to work 80 hours a week because of this horrible economy, it puts strain on a marriage. Even at 40% (which I am sure is higher). That means one in about 3 people are poor in this country. That is huge and the right still wants to throw those people under a bus. We can glaze this in any kind of sugar coating you would like, but it is true.
|
|
|
Post by badman on Mar 28, 2017 15:57:56 GMT -7
corbint, your logic is a little peculiar. Can you explain how the right is responsible for this economy? Where did you get the idea that only rich people have conservative values? A good measure of us poor folks were doing just fine before liberal regulations killed our jobs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 16:48:05 GMT -7
corbint, your logic is a little peculiar. Can you explain how the right is responsible for this economy? Where did you get the idea that only rich people have conservative values? A good measure of us poor folks were doing just fine before liberal regulations killed our jobs. Look at the economy of the early 1960s. Income inequality was not where it is today and not even close. The rich have pushed for more legislation to help themselves. Tax cuts have been an ongoing problem as time has progressed and tax cuts for the rich mean more debt for the country. Less money taken in means less to pay the bills. The right is the party that is largely for tax cuts and tax cuts have us where we are. From the very start of tax cuts they have created a problem. And believe me, many on the right are christian conservative, I live in the red south and there is proof right here in my area.
|
|
|
Post by badman on Mar 28, 2017 17:24:27 GMT -7
In the 60's, folks had good paying manufacturing jobs. Many of those are gone. Do you really believe that tax cuts are responsible? If so, please explain.
Why did those who provided those jobs decide that paying less taxes on their earnings made sense to eliminate their earnings?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 18:32:45 GMT -7
In the 60's, folks had good paying manufacturing jobs. Many of those are gone. Do you really believe that tax cuts are responsible? If so, please explain. Why did those who provided those jobs decide that paying less taxes on their earnings made sense to eliminate their earnings? In the early 1960s the top tax rate was 91%. Today we yell socialist if people even think about making the tax rate that high. But people in the early 1960s only 70 times lower the wages of the owner of said business. This meant that income inequality was not an issue because even the low man on the totem pole was not many tons less then the high man on the totem pole. As taxes go lower for the rich, income separates. So the rich get much richer and costs rise because of this (a subset of humanity has more to spend). Meanwhile the effective tax rate of the middle class is higher then the top class. Who on the economic ladder creates opportunity in this country? It used to be the middle class because the middle class could take risks with the money they had. Sure, the "rich" created opportunity within a given industry, but the middle class had ideas and acted on those ideas also creating opportunity. Now we have the extremely wealthy making 1000x (or more) what their employees make. This has made it so only the rich can afford to take risks while what is left of the middle class has all but vanished. Those who are left in the middle class find risks to be to risky. So now we end up with two classes. The rich and the poor. Because if you are not rich then your buying power is diminished to a point where you are poor. This is proven in many ways but the simplistic way to view this is look who owns everything. The media, department stores, cable companies, phone companies, electric companies, water companies... All owned by the rich. The poor (or middle class if you live in that illusion) cannot compete on the economic level of the rich, so they own much less and it goes down all the time. Meanwhile the debt rises all because legislation makes sure the debt does not fall on the rich. But the rich create debt. Who gets paid in war? Who gets paid when you buy a vehicle? Who gets paid when you board a plane? Who get paid when you shop at Walmart? Who gets paid when you buy fuel? Who gets paid for advertisements when you watch TV? This is the rich. So the rich pays less in taxes and we work for the rich. And then when we buy goods that money goes back in the hands of the rich and we keep them rich. I have nothing against this per se. But the rich is the reason we are where we are today. And the government taking bribes only guarantees that this issue will get no better at all. So of course in the 1960s there were many jobs. But when the middle class no longer has the power to run with ideas, you end up with a country where the rich buys up everything because they can afford to, and the middle class worries about saving instead of moving the economy forward. History has the records. If the rich were charged 91% tax again and the middle class income was closer to rich income, our economy would boom and that has been proven. Since the 1960s our economy has done nothing but slowly sink to where we are today. And with nothing done, this will only get worse,
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 28, 2017 20:01:42 GMT -7
Even at 40% (which I am sure is higher). That means one in about 3 people are poor in this country. That is huge and the right still wants to throw those people under a bus. We can glaze this in any kind of sugar coating you would like, but it is true. I'm glad lack of being there or working an 80 hr weeks is all it takes to cause a divorce. Seems neither of those affected She Who Must Be Obeyed who is about to finish our 35th year with me. Many times I wished my work week finished at 80 hrs a week or even that I could be in this country. Unfortunately, there was no room in my dufflebag for Die Frau much less die Kinder. Did I forget to mention that this was in a combat zone? No stress there for that gal who hung out her blue star banner praying the star didn't turn gold! Even the 18 months at the Puzzle Palace (a.k.a. Pentagon) wasn't enough to bring on the scheisster lawyers. The 80 hrs a week was still a pipe dream even there. We had 24 years of this. Now for your data claims. 40% are poor? Really. Pew research has an income calculator that places your income as upper, middle or lower income, not only by state and municipality, but the nation's averages too. I think they're using 2014 data, but the US has 20% upper, 29% lower and 51% as middle-income. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/11/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/Wish I had saved the link but last week Pew showed the 4% loss of the middle class. Of that 4%, 1% dropped to the lower class, but 3% moved to the upper class. The majority of change was upward. Just because you're in that 29% lower-income bracket doesn't mean you're poor. Pew also shows using 2012 data that the poor (poverty) rate is 16%. that's a far cry from your 40%. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/13/whos-poor-in-america-50-years-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/Your sugar coating is melting.
|
|