Man Wins $2M Lottery and Still Receives Food Stamps

[ElasticNinja]

what is that fair share? 10%, 30%, 50%?

an remember its taxed again as income to the stockholders after dividends

IMO, a profitable company should pay 25-35% Corporation Tax

 

[lordofthereef]

IMO, a profitable company should pay 25-35% Corporation Tax

We cross into the definition of "profitable" here though. What if the company is turning a profit, but after your imposed tax they would not be? Just playing devil's advocate here.

 

[noah way]

When the wealthy and businesses use loopholes to get millions (billions) from the government they are 'smart capitalists' but when some loser gets a few thousand because of a loophole he's the scum of the earth.

Well put.

 

[noah way]

I'm going to go ahead and say it...I bet more then half the people getting food stamps are scamming the system one way or another.

I'll bet they are three times as many people eligible for food stamps who don't take them than as there are people who are scamming the system to get them.

 

[noah way]

tax money does not belong to the govt....... they take it from the people/companies............ if a company pays less that doesnt mean I have to pay more......... it means the govt has to SPEND less

No, it means the government has LESS to spend. So they have to RAISE taxes on someone else or borrow the money and increase the deficit. Alternatively they could cut spending, but then who would bail out the corporate banks, insurance companies and auto makers?

If a corporation (or a rich individual ...) pays less tax, where does the money needed to run the government, the country, finance multiple wars as well as pay for social services and corporate subsidies (often to the very same highly profitable corporations that didn't pay any taxes in the first place) come from?

YOUR POCKET. The Bush tax cuts added $2.8 trillion to the deficit. That's money the government borrowed (that effectively went straight into the pocket of billionaires) that YOU have to pay back.

 

[lordofthereef]

I'll bet they are three times as many people eligible for food stamps who don't take them than as there are people who are scamming the system to get them.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I never considered this. Now I truly wonder what the actual statistic is.

 

[AngryHatter]

I'm going to go ahead and say it...I bet more then half the people getting food stamps are scamming the system one way or another.

Is that your opinions or can you cite facts?

 

[lordofthereef]

Is that your opinions or can you cite facts?

Pretty hard to cite facts. If there were citable facts, laws would be changed as a result.

 

[noah way]

You want facts?

"According to the Government Accountability Office, at a 2009 count, 3.53% of food stamps benefits were found to be overpaid, down from 7.01% in 1999. A 2003 analysis found that two-thirds of all improper payments were the fault of the caseworker, not the participant."

source: Wikipedia

I take back what I said before.

I'll bet they are 10 times as many people eligible for food stamps who don't take them than as there are people who are scamming the system to get them.

 

[copestag]

you found a number which shows there have been clerical errors which resulted in bertha getting $437 in food stamps instead of the $419 she was "entitled" to........ what does that have to do with scamming the system?

all that number shows is the amount overpaid to recipients........ there is no number on record of how many people are scamming the system..... because as mentioned..... if they knew how many then they would change the system

 

[NDanforth]

No, it means the government has LESS to spend. So they have to RAISE taxes on someone else or borrow the money and increase the deficit. Alternatively they could cut spending, but then who would bail out the corporate banks, insurance companies and auto makers?

If a corporation (or a rich individual ...) pays less tax, where does the money needed to run the government, the country, finance multiple wars as well as pay for social services and corporate subsidies (often to the very same highly profitable corporations that didn't pay any taxes in the first place) come from?

YOUR POCKET. The Bush tax cuts added $2.8 trillion to the deficit. That's money the government borrowed (that effectively went straight into the pocket of billionaires) that YOU have to pay back.

No, Bush's spending is what caused the deficit. Revenue for 2003-2007 was the highest in U.S. History. It's not a revenue issue we have it's a spending problem. Our current budget deficit for the year is equal to the entire networth of U.S. Billionaires, it's not mathematically possible to tax our way out of this...

 

[mdram]

No, Bush's spending is what caused the deficit. Revenue for 2003-2007 was the highest in U.S. History. It's not a revenue issue we have it's a spending problem. Our current budget deficit for the year is equal to the entire networth of U.S. Billionaires, it's not mathematically possible to tax our way out of this...

congressional spending, remember all spending bills must originate in the house of representatives. they can take the presidents advice, but they have to start it

 

[mdram]

You want facts?

"According to the Government Accountability Office, at a 2009 count, 3.53% of food stamps benefits were found to be overpaid, down from 7.01% in 1999. A 2003 analysis found that two-thirds of all improper payments were the fault of the caseworker, not the participant."

source: Wikipedia

I take back what I said before.

I'll bet they are 10 times as many people eligible for food stamps who don't take them than as there are people who are scamming the system to get them.

1 in 7 people in the us are on food stamps

About 1 in 7 in U.S. Receive Food Stamps - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[NDanforth]

congressional spending, remember all spending bills must originate in the house of representatives. they can take the presidents advice, but they have to start it

Of course you are correct but the final say in the approval of those bills lies with the Pres. And Bush was an unapologetic spender, though his spending is dwarfed by the last 2 years.

 

[mdram]

Of course you are correct but the final say in the approval of those bills lies with the Pres. And Bush was an unapologetic spender, though his spending is dwarfed by the last 2 years.

true he should have vetoed alot of things
and he should never have signed TARP, shoulda let obama have that honor

 

[noah way]

No, Bush's spending is what caused the deficit.

Partially correct. We had a deficit before, we've had 10 years ($3 trillion so far) of wars, we don't collect tax from hugely profitable corporations (GE, Exxon/Mobil, etc.) and we have an ongoing corporate bailout that is somewhere between $5-8 trillion (so far). Bush's $2.8 trillion in tax cuts for the super rich certainly didn't help.

It's not a revenue issue we have it's a spending problem. Our current budget deficit for the year is equal to the entire networth of U.S. Billionaires, it's not mathematically possible to tax our way out of this...

It's a spending problem because we don't have revenue.

It's a revenue problem because there is too much spending.

It's not one or the other, it's both. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes. Spending cuts should start with ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and slashing the US military budget. Raising taxes should start with eliminating corporate welfare and the loopholes that allow corporations (and the rich) to avoid taxes.

And we should absolutely rescind the Bush tax cuts, which were enacted in wartime, no less, in theory at least a time of national sacrifice (unless you're rich, of course).

Spending cuts that negatively effect jobs and the quality of life, health and education should be last on the list, not first.

 

[Crude]

Is that your opinions or can you cite facts?

Pretty hard to cite facts. If there were citable facts, laws would be changed as a result.

Thanks for the answer on that one.

Bottom line. Just because you are eligible for food stamps doesn't mean you aren't scamming the system. But as there are ZERO statistics on what "poor" people spend their money on we will never have facts to debate will.

 

[Crude]

Partially correct. We had a deficit before, we've had 10 years ($3 trillion so far) of wars, we don't collect tax from hugely profitable corporations (GE, Exxon/Mobil, etc.) and we have an ongoing corporate bailout that is somewhere between $5-8 trillion (so far). Bush's $2.8 trillion in tax cuts for the super rich certainly didn't help.



It's a spending problem because we don't have revenue.

It's a revenue problem because there is too much spending.

It's not one or the other, it's both. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes. Spending cuts should start with ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and slashing the US military budget. Raising taxes should start with eliminating corporate welfare and the loopholes that allow corporations (and the rich) to avoid taxes.

And we should absolutely rescind the Bush tax cuts, which were enacted in wartime, no less, in theory at least a time of national sacrifice (unless you're rich, of course).

Spending cuts that negatively effect jobs and the quality of life, health and education should be last on the list, not first.

This should put a dent in your "Bush's Fault" theory.
National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[noah way]

This should put a dent in your "Bush's Fault" theory.
National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL, you made my argument for me. Thanks!

increase in debt as % of GDP

Clinton 1st term -0.7%
Clinton 2nd term -9%
Bush 1st term +7.1%
Bush 2nd term +20%

You chart shows how every Democratic president since (and including Carter) has lowered the debt/GDP percentage while every Republican president has increased it.

 

[NDanforth]

Partially correct. We had a deficit before, we've had 10 years ($3 trillion so far) of wars, we don't collect tax from hugely profitable corporations (GE, Exxon/Mobil, etc.) and we have an ongoing corporate bailout that is somewhere between $5-8 trillion (so far). Bush's $2.8 trillion in tax cuts for the super rich certainly didn't help.



It's a spending problem because we don't have revenue.

It's a revenue problem because there is too much spending.

It's not one or the other, it's both. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes. Spending cuts should start with ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and slashing the US military budget. Raising taxes should start with eliminating corporate welfare and the loopholes that allow corporations (and the rich) to avoid taxes.

And we should absolutely rescind the Bush tax cuts, which were enacted in wartime, no less, in theory at least a time of national sacrifice (unless you're rich, of course).

Spending cuts that negatively effect jobs and the quality of life, health and education should be last on the list, not first.

You must have missed that the nation had it's highest increase of revenue in history between 2003-2007. The Bush tax cuts worked!
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

 

[noah way]

You must have missed that the nation had it's highest increase of revenue in history between 2003-2007. The Bush tax cuts worked!
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

Taxing less = more revenue? Hahahaha

Tax revenue was up because Bush executed Cheney's policy of "deficits don't matter". A couple trillion worth of deficit spending generates a lot of tax revenue. As the previously cited chart clearly shows, Bush increased the debt to GDP ratio by nearly 30%.

Funny how "conservatives" weren't crying about it at the time.

 

[AndyLL]

No, Bush's spending is what caused the deficit. Revenue for 2003-2007 was the highest in U.S. History. It's not a revenue issue we have it's a spending problem.

LOL

Except in a serious recession/depression, EVERY year revenue is the highest in history because of inflation and the growth of the economy.

Bush started giving tax breaks in 2001 and 2001-2004 had lower revenue then in 2000. ( don't know where your numbers came from but they're wrong)

Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2012

The last time that happened was 1971.

We've had huge drops in revenue starting in 2008 which is what is driving the huge deficits.

You are correct Bush had a spending problem... over a trillion in wars, over a trillion in bailouts... 1/2 trillion in medicare part d.

Don't remember republican's complaining about it when he was in office.

 

[mdram]

LOL, you made my argument for me. Thanks!

increase in debt as % of GDP

Clinton 1st term -0.7%
Clinton 2nd term -9%
Bush 1st term +7.1%
Bush 2nd term +20%

You chart shows how every Democratic president since (and including Carter) has lowered the debt/GDP percentage while every Republican president has increased it.

its not the president, its congress

 

[noah way]

its not the president, its congress

How many Democratic spending bills did Bush veto?

 

[mdram]

How many Democratic spending bills did Bush veto?

not sure
List of United States presidential vetoes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia