Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Technogeeb
Thank you for clarifying your failed character development. You demonstrated your dishonesty and intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions -- you're clueless.

Here's the proof in our discussion:

Technogeeb: There is nothing in the system to prevent an administration from increasing the default payout to every household to be equal to the average income of every citizen. 898

Zon: Every year, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] determine the "poverty level" for each family size." 900

Here's the paragraph (in red) that was sandwiched in between and is the paragraph Technogeeb dishonestly omitted in his intent to deceive the reader.

[ The monthly FCA for each adult is .23 * (HSS poverty level for a single person)/12 to assure no marriage penalty due to the manner in which the poverty level is dependant on family size. The monthly FCA for each child is .23 * (the incremental increase of HSS poverty level for a family with one child over no child) ] A. Geezer 68

Zon: There's the mechanism that prevents an administration from increasing the payout beyond the poverty level. 900

Technogeeb: It doesn't work. They can simply say the poverty level is $150,000. 901

You don't work. Your brain is steeped in irrationality and has rendered you ineffective. According to your "logic" they can do whatever they want.  Thus they can do whatever they want with your preferred plan too. For with any plan you propose they can simply say the _______ (fill in the blank) level is __________ (fill in the blank). For example, they can simply say a 99% income tax will be withheld from all paychecks where the person's annual  income level is $10,000 or more.

904 posted on 11/11/2002 6:52:12 AM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies ]


To: Zon
Zon: Every year, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] determine the "poverty level" for each family size." 900

Here's an example of the flaw in your know it all, one size fits all big central government, rebate:

9-25-01

Study: Costs rising for average California families

By Leon Drouin Keith
Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The wages needed for the typical California family to meet basic costs total nearly three times the federal poverty level, according to a report released Monday by a non-profit research and advocacy group.

The study by the California Budget Project found that a family of four needs an income of $52,034 a year to earn a modest living -- a 16 percent increase from 1999, when the organization first studied how much it takes to make a living in the state.

The study found that the cost of living is rising faster than the state's average hourly wage, which went up 9.5 percent, from $11.96 in 1998 to $13.10 last year.

Raising two children is tough all around California, said Jean Ross, the project's executive director. Housing costs are sky-high in urban and coastal areas, but because wages are lower inland, "in a lot of respects it's a toss-up," Ross said.

Making ends meet is particularly hard for single parents. An adult raising two kids while working one 40-hour-a-week job would need to earn close to $21 an hour to cover the basics, the report found. That's well over triple the state's minimum wage of $6.25 an hour.

"There has to be some broader awareness that the minimum wage standards are utterly contemptible -- they're not just ridiculous," said Bob Untiedt, executive director of the Hollywood Interfaith Sponsoring Committee, a coalition of churches and a synagogue working to improve the living standards of their community.

Untiedt said that although wealthier people may think that families can get by on much less than the report suggests, doing so means coping with hardships including overcrowded, substandard housing, a lack of transportation and no medical care.

"There really is a lot of struggle in the lives of lots of ordinary people," he said.

The project used the latest available federal and state data to estimate how much families need to pay for housing, transportation, child care, food, taxes and other necessary expenses. It did not take into account this year's federal income tax cut because details on the newest tax tables were not available, Ross said.

The report assumed the families had housing cheaper than 60 percent of their region's rental properties, and that they enrolled in individual health care plans through Kaiser Permanente or Blue Cross.

Although families in lower-cost housing or who have health care through employers or public programs would have lower expenses than the report indicates, there are other expenses that are not included, Ross said.

The study assumes that families rent their homes, do not send their children to private schools, are not saving money and aren't taking vacations, Ross said. "We don't even figure in two weeks at a state park," she said.

Ross said one thing federal officials could do quickly to ease the burden on families is to grant the state a waiver that would allow it to expand its "Healthy Families" program, which provides health care to children in families earning two and a half times the poverty level or less. The waiver would expand the program to the children's families.

So in effect, in your system, contrary to your promise of equality, the impoverished in Cal. for example would be subsidizing the impoverished in other states.

That system would be fair because?_________

909 posted on 11/11/2002 7:39:23 AM PST by lewislynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 904 | View Replies ]

To: Zon
Thank you for clarifying your failed character development

Thank you for identifying that you are a liar. When you realized that you couldn't debate the subject matter honestly, you've switched to personal attacks (starting several posts ago, but I had hoped it was just a temporary failing of yours). When I point out very real flaws (and massively fatal) in the system, you dismiss them as "hyperbole" without even bothering to analyze those flaws.

Here's the proof in our discussion:

And the proof that you are intellectually dishonest. You quote a portion of the mechanism that SEEMS to prevent the flaw in the system. In fact it does nothing of the sort and provides the mechanism for perversion of the system.

You don't work. Your brain is steeped in irrationality

I'm not the one refusing to admit that a system that gives handouts to every household in the US from the government treasury is socialism, and that a system which allows a single, unelected bureaucrat to adjust those values to whatever level he desires is fundamentally flawed.

and has rendered you ineffective. According to your "logic" they can do whatever they want

That's because, under your proposed system, they can do exactly that when it comes to the amount of the government handout. You show this calculation based on proverty level, but are either ignorant (or deliberately deceptive) of the fact that the same administration can modify the value of this calculation merely by changing the value of the poverty level. And since that requires nothing more than the secretary publishing the new value in the Federal Register, your system, once passed, allows a single individual (and an unelected one at that) the ability to convert the economy of the United States into a communistic one. They can choose to make those payouts as large as they want. Far from providing proof of a mechanism to prevent such a perversion of the system, your quote on the "mechanism" shows that it is instead the critical flaw itself.
915 posted on 11/11/2002 8:57:49 AM PST by Technogeeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 904 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson