Assuming (as seems obvious) that you have endured some sort of higher education, how did you manage never to hear of the labor movement in America? Riots? Bless your heart, we’re talking pitched battles, here! People got killed! *Lots *of them!
The eight hour day, child labor laws, pensions…do you imagine in your wildest delusions that these things were handed down from the gentle hand of businessmen and capitalists? Or would it be closer to the truth that these were wrested from their greedy grasp by courageous men and women?
I don’t insist that you be able to outline the distinctions between a Wobbly and a Trotskyist, but it would be nice if you had even a glancing familiarity with American history.
Rand Rover, actually, those types of riots have happened throughout history-time and time again-where do you think our labor laws have come from-out of the goodness of our hearts? Why do you think we HAVE these laws? elucidator’s right. Look up a little something called the Homestead Strike, for example.
And before you call me ignorant, I’ll follow your example in throwing around credentials and point out that I have a bachelors in history. I’ve also lived my entire life in Pittsburgh, a town with long history of labor struggles.
But what does “subsidizing people for doing bad things” have to do with the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is the federal refundable tax credit that Obama’s plan seeks to expand, and which seems to be what you have in mind when you talk about “taking money from the rich to give cash handouts to the poor”?
The EITC is specifically targeted to low-income working people. In other words, EITC recipients are contributing to society, by successfully participating in the legal workforce and helping all you tax lawyers create more wealth in the economy, right?
If hard work for legal pay is your yardstick for determining whether somebody is “contributing to society”, then it seems to me that EITC recipients pass your test with flying colors. It’s just that EITC recipients aren’t getting very much pay in return for their hard work, so the government drastically reduces their taxes, often (not always) to the point of leaving them with a net negative tax burden (what you describe as a “cash handout”).
So why would you object to that? We’re not talking about feeding the shiftless and the lazy on turtle soup and venison with a gold spoon and setting them up in a coach and six. We’re talking about some hardworking breadwinners whose employers pay them low wages getting a little supplementary income to help raise them above the poverty level. If your real objection to the welfare state is that it “subsidizes” people who don’t “contribute”, then what’s your beef with the EITC?
And again, why are you upset about the EITC specifically with regard to Obama? The EITC has been part of our federal tax code for decades, and no administration has seriously attempted to eliminate it, and it’s unlikely that any ever will. In fact, the number of EITC recipients has grown under every administration ever since its inception in 1969, owing to the growth in total population and the stagnation in real incomes for the working poor (although the number dipped a bit under Clinton in the booming '90s). Trying to spin the EITC as some kind of defining issue for Obama in particular, or as an issue that significantly differentiates Obama from other mainstream American politicians, just seems silly.
I assume you accidentally posted this in the wrong thread.
Let’s look back at the original post that I was responding to:
We are talking about the government giving cash handouts to the poor. How does your post about people with jobs who riot against their employers for better working conditions have anything to do with what we are talking about?
It’s got an anti-Obama slant, but it’s from the WSJ. The basic idea is that Obama is offering a panoply of credits, not just an increase in the EITC. Obama has also said he would do another round of stimulus payments of $1,000 to each taxpayer.
But I understand what you are saying. I went overboard talking just about cash handouts to people that don’t work at all. I’m also opposed to cash handouts to people who do work and who just don’t make that much.
But you apparently don’t object to giving the working poor food stamps or job training, which are just specialized subsidies for things (food, training) that cash would allow them to buy.
As long as we’re willing to subsidize the working poor to some extent, why should we balk at subsidizing them with money rather than with specially designed (and arguably less efficient) money substitutes?
Its a religious thing. In the Temple of St Ayn, cash takes approximately the same place as a communion wafer takes in a Catholic setting (but requires no transubstantiation miracle, as cash is the holy essence.) It is therefore blasphemous to transfer such holy essence from the hands of the worthy to the unworthy. The Reform Aynhole may condone such a transfer in the form of a check, so long as actual cash is not sullied and debased, but the Conservative Aynhole insists that any transfer of sacred essence be regarded as equally blasphemous.
Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish, he eats for the rest of his life, give him money to buy a fishing pole, you’re a Commie.
Palin assumes the office of P.O.T.U.S. as McCain is fully occupied shouting at some kids to get off of the Whitehouse lawn.
And the U.S. ship of state is dead in the water as the Russian and Chinese and Middle Eastern sharks circle slowly around bit by bit,chunk by chunk eating you alive…
And Palin has no idea what she should do…
And she cant even understand the advice that the Whitehouse experts are trying so desperately to get over to her …
And then the ship of state is no longer dead in the water…
Just dead.
Now, this isn’t fair, just a couple of days ago, Palin sat down in an interview and discussed in detail how ready she is to become president. Question starts at 6:30 of the interview
Excuse me, I’ll be curled up in this corner, alternately sobbing and laughing.
But you apparently don’t object to giving the working poor food stamps or job training, which are just specialized subsidies for things (food, training) that cash would allow them to buy.