facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up

Canfield


Residential
3 bedroom, 4 bath
$335000


Poland


Residential
3 bedroom, 5 bath
$179900


- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
 

« Reason

The lie of personal responsibility

By Tyler S. Clark (Contact)


Published July 13, 2008

Last week, the New York Times reported that the Bush Administration is considering rescuing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from insolvency. This, after they stepped in and engineered the sale of Bear Stearns to JP Morgan Chase for pennies on the dollar so that it would not fail. The government argues that it's in the best interest of the economy for these banks to succeed, just as it argued that it was in the best interest of the economy for the airlines to be propped up after the 9/11 attacks. In other words, the free market reigns supreme except when it doesn't. The rules are inviolate, except when they're not.

These so-called conservatives like to espouse the principles of free-market economics: deregulation, laissez-faire legislation, tax cuts for corporations to stimulate investments, tougher bankruptcy rules for individuals to ensure personal responsibility as a bedrock principle of our society and, of course, letting the market run free to figure out for itself what is right and fair. Meanwhile, we're in the midst of a widely recognized downturn, and people are hurting in real ways.

My mom, like so many other folks, had put her faith in the real estate market. She had bought a home in a good neighborhood in Tucson, then a bit later found one closer to work and bought it assuming she'd sell her old one in short order. Weeks turned into months and, finally, with no buyer, she had to take an offer to rent it.

Since our move to Youngstown, she's joined us and put both homes on the market. They have finally sold, but what the market has decided they are currently worth is at a drastic deficit from what she owes. Of course, no one in the federal government is stepping up to offer her, or any of the other thousands of homeowners in similar predicaments, assistance. Personal responsibility and the free market have handed her this lot, and she must now deal with it.

If we're going to have a big bailout here, then why are the citizens of the United States exempt from it? Why are the corporations the only ones who matter to the nation's economy? Why are the taxpayers being told they must fend for themselves while footing the bill for the failures of the corporations?

I suggest to you it's because the government can't hear its people any longer. The link of the government of the United States to the citizenry has been severed and blockaded by corporate interests sucking at the teat, so that its children cannot find the mother for nourishment.

This is why personal responsibility is so important in this corporate-dominated nation: there is no other recourse available. If you cannot sustain yourself, then may the fates help you, for your government cannot; it is beholden to the corporations that created and nurture it. Every two years, elected officials come through town shaking hands and promising to love, honor and cherish you, then they disappear and get fat at the corporate trough, never to be seen again while we waste away to greater debt. Meanwhile, the CEOs of the corporations we serve are paid 465 times more than the average worker. So, it's more than a little shocking to hear McCain adviser Phil Gramm call Americans concerned about their condition in this "mental recession" a "nation of whiners."

I'd like to tell Mr. Gramm, Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama, for that matter, that they can all go to hell, or to their country club, or anywhere but back to Youngstown, until they've grasped a realistic picture of the facts on the ground. Not the Iraqi ground, not the Israeli ground, not the Chinese ground, the ground right here in America, right here in Youngstown.

The headline in Sunday's Vindicator was "Economic decline leaves less money for fun activities." Yet, the business section's headline was something quite different: "It's smooth sailing for yacht builders". The lead paragraph told it all: "Fuel prices are soaring and credit markets tightening, but the super-rich are still lining up to pay tens of millions of dollars for mega yachts."

I don't want to hear about the candidates' plans to prop up this or that corporation with taxpayer money. I want to understand what the plans are to fix the income disparity between the top .01 percent in this country, who bring in 976 times more income than the bottom 90 percent. Surely that can't just be a matter of ingenuity and hard work. There's something systemic going on here, and it stinks, and it's killing us. For all you people who want to vote pro-life, forget abortion, focus on the economy, and you'll save more lives.


Comments

1Bull_Chip(170 comments)posted 6 years ago

“For all you people who want to vote pro-life, forget abortion, focus on the economy, and you'll save more lives.”

What an idiotic statement! Millions are being killed by abortion, how many are starving because of the economy? If you look outside of Youngstown, most of the country has ample employment. We, as a nation, are near or at the level considered “full employment”. Being bitter because your mother bought in at the top of a bubble is your right. Making everyone else to pay for it is not. Look at all of the people who lost money in the dot com bubble, or the bio-tech bubble or the Tulip bubble (look it up). One area I once lived in, the housing prices doubled then fell by 25%. Anyone who was in before the bubble was ahead, after the bubble lost their shirts IF they sold.

Your alleged corporate welfare and class hatred is typical of the Youngstown area. You are among kindred spirits, I hope you enjoy it. Don’t work yourself up into the upper echelons of income, try to have the government take it from the ones that have and give it to you. Youngstown is a shining example of this approach.

Suggest removal:

2Tugboat(759 comments)posted 6 years ago

Bull: My interpreation of this is what the studies show, that birth control efforts(and not abortion) are more vigorous in higher income levels.

Suggest removal:

3lucy(123 comments)posted 6 years ago

"I suggest to you it's because the government can't hear its people any longer. The link of the government of the United States to the citizenry has been severed and blockaded by corporate interests..."

Great post Tyler. A French politician (can't remember who) once said that in Europe, the governments are afraid of the people, and in America, the people are afraid of the government.

Suggest removal:

4apollo(1227 comments)posted 6 years ago

Clark is right, why should we the taxpayers bail out corporations who played russian roulette with their investors money and lost while average Americans are losing everyday because of things outside their control? It isn't like his Mother was flipping houses for a living. Why should I have to cover the losses that a poor management team at Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac caused?

Suggest removal:

5valleyred(1094 comments)posted 6 years ago

Liberalism destroys everything good about America.

Suggest removal:

6tylersclark(182 comments)posted 6 years ago

Bull: you misunderstand me. I understand that investments come with risk. I'm fine with that. I no more expect pity from a loss in the market than a parade from a windfall.

My point is that when you and I are expected to roll with our losses, so should corporations be expected to. We should not have to subsidize their losses while simultaneously dealing with our own. My example from personal experience was merely to put a face on what's going on out there.

valleyred: What an remarkably reasoned six-word argument you've taken pains to post here in response to my opinions, arguments and statistics. Could we at least engage in some dialog?

Suggest removal:

7Woody(451 comments)posted 6 years ago

Tyler,

As a conservative I hate when the federal government gets involved in anything other than building roads, providing a strong military, coining money, or anything outside the enumerated powers as defined by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

That said however, the US government is responsible for regulating interstate commerce. A major hit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which were once federal programs, created by the Czar of federal programs, FDR (we will leave discussions about all the trouble his programs created, how he engaged in deficit spending to spend his way out of a depression, and taking Americans to war with a country that did not attack and posed no direct threat to the US later - I almost sound like one of todays Democrats), would cause economic hardships for millions of Americans, including labor union members right here in the valley.

Anyway, Tyler, if we use your arguement for not bailing out the corporations, should we not have sent money to New Orleans. The residents there took a chance by buying or building homes and businesses in a bathtub.

What about Florida, certainly when you live there, you know you increase the chances of being hit with a hurricane.

How about the tornados in Kansas, certainly we can see by what happened to Dorthy, that twisters are an acquired risk when you like in the midwest.

Suggest removal:

8apollo(1227 comments)posted 6 years ago

Hey Woody, Freddie Mac wasn't created until 1970 so at least get your so called facts straight.

Deficit spening is always used to extract us from recessions and certainly depressions. The Bush stimulus package a prime example.

Went to war (WWII) without an attack??? Ah, Great Britain, our allies were attacked! Iraq, attacked NOBODY!

Isn't it amazing the revisionist history conservatives try and spew.

Suggest removal:

9Woody(451 comments)posted 6 years ago

Apollo,

Fannie Mae was created by FDR, sorry smart guy, I was lumping the two together.

What I was doing is taking the arguements that the left is using to attack Bush today against their patron saint FDR.

We did nothing when Great Britain was attacked (aside from sending money and weapons), only after Japan, not Germany, attacked us did we get involved. FDR wanted to sign an arms agreement with Hitler. Hitler was all to eager to sign, as he was building his miliary in secret. But in the end it was JAPAN not Germany that bombed Pearl Harbor, unless of course you use the movie Animal House as a reference source.

Suggest removal:

10tylersclark(182 comments)posted 6 years ago

Woody, maybe I misunderstood. Are you taking my arguments against meddling in the free market and comparing them to charity spending in instances of natural disasters? You've completely missed the point or are deliberately obfuscating it.

I'm saying if the free market is really inviolate, then there shouldn't be bailouts of these corporations. Freddie and Fannie are just one example. Bear Stearns was another and the airlines after 9/11 another. Meanwhile, we continue to grant huge tax breaks and other sweetheart legislative favors to corporations to continue to lessen their responsibility for paying their dues to support a society whose favors they then enjoy. I'm asking what's fair.

I'll defer to apollo on correcting the factual errors in your assertions about the founding of Freddie (1970) and Fannie (1968).

Suggest removal:

11tylersclark(182 comments)posted 6 years ago

I stand corrected on the Fannie front. Created by FDR in '38 to help lower mortgage costs and rechartered by Congress in '68 as a publicly owned company.

Suggest removal:

12apollo(1227 comments)posted 6 years ago

Woody is trying intentionally to alter the facts to suit his purpose.

The argument against Bush is Iraq attacked NOBODY! Not so of Germany and Japan in WWII so the comparison isn't valid and is actually just plain dumb.

Here is the timeline of WWII Woody for your education!

The commencement of World War Two has different dates in different countries. To the Americans, World War Two started on December 7th, 1941, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. To Britain, France, Canada, Poland, World War Two started on Sept. of 1939, when Nazi Germany attacked Poland. To Czechoslovakia, World War Two started in March of 1939, when Nazi Germany attacked them. To the Ethiopians, World War Two started in 1936, when Italy attacked. To the Chinese, it dates back to 1931, when Japan occupied Manchuria. The Russians date the start start June 1941 (not 1939).

World War 2 "started" on the 3rd of September, when Britain declared war on Germany (they had a treaty with Poland). The war ended in early May 1945 in Europe, Hitler having committed suicide in April of that year. The war in Japan ended after their surrender to the Americans in response to the A-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki -respectively the 6th and 9th of August 1945.

By a long-standing convention, the dates are usually given as 1939-1945, except in Russia, where they are usually given as 1941-1945. If one gives another starting date, one conveys the message that one is making some point or other, for example, that one is claiming that the sufferings of the Chinese have not been given the attention they deserve. As for the notion that WW1 and WW2 were one war with a 20-year truce, this is usually not meant in a literal sense.

Most historians agree the "world war" started in 1937 or in 1939. The most commonly accepted date is either September 1st or 3rd, 1939.

The date is debated, as the following events are cited as possible starting points:

1 September 1939: The German invasion of Poland.

3 September 1939: France and Britain declared war on Germany. (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa followed by 10 September).
The Soviet Union: 22 June 1941 (German attack on the USSR).

7 July 1937: The Japanese invasion of China (the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War).

1931: The Japanese invasion of Manchuria.

7 December, 1941: Japan attacks America without any declaration of war.

8 December 8, 1941: America declares war on Japan.

11 December, 1941: Germany and Fascist Italy declare war on America.

13 October, 1943: Italy declares war on Germany.

19 April, 1945: German forces in Italy surrender.

8 May, 1945: Germany surrenders (VE Day, Victory in Europe Day).

2 September, 1945: Japan surrenders (VJ Day, Victory over Japan Day). General Okamura Yasiyi submitted surrender to Douglas MacArthur and Admiral Chester Nimitz on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

But why let facts get in the way of an agenda huh Woody?

Suggest removal:

13Woody(451 comments)posted 6 years ago

Apollo, I see Google has been good to you. And you also know how to cut and paste. Basic computer literacy has done you well. I seem to remember the above facts from my American History classes at YSU.

So from you above timeline, the US declared War on Japan. Then the Germans and Italians declared war on the US. But when did we declare war on the Germans and Italians? It was not until 3 days later on the 11th of Dec. But again, it was Japan and not Germany or Italy that attacked us.

Iran and Venezuala has declared war on the US Economy, should we in turn attack theirs, because they are going to attack ours?

Suggest removal:

14apollo(1227 comments)posted 6 years ago

Well, if finding and cutting/pasting the facts are so easy why do you refuse to do it? Why do you make stupid comparisons between Iraq and WWII when there is no comparison? Why do you claim that Freddie Mac is an FDR creation when in FACT it is a creation of Nixon's presidency? Oh, that's right, you conservatives always alter the facts to suit your agenda.

When did Venezuela declare war on America? I must have missed that. When did Iran declare war on us? What impact does Iran have on us? Maybe China exporting us all those communist goods also declared war on us?

So many people, so little intellect.

Suggest removal:

15Woody(451 comments)posted 6 years ago

See article below (WOW!! this cut and paste does work):

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/art...

I am sorry I lumped Fannie and Freddie together. It was only because of Fannie that Freddie was introduced. They wanted to break Fannie's monopoly control on the mortgage market.

I make stupid comparions, because those are the only ones I am afraid you will understand Apollo.

Suggest removal:

16apollo(1227 comments)posted 6 years ago

I figured you for a World Net Daily news reader. Talk about the dumb leading the dumb. Amazing the sources that people use for their propaganda. Why don't you try a news site that actually checks facts? One that investigates the truth? Nah, that wouldn't feed those preconceived beliefs and prejudices.

Suggest removal:

17tylersclark(182 comments)posted 6 years ago

Ok, guys, let's break it up please. I appreciate the ardor, but World War II has nothing to do with what I was hoping to bring us here to discuss.

If you want to squabble over the merits of WorldNetDaily or your relative intellects, please find a boxing ring and hash it out.

And now back to our regularly scheduled topic...

Suggest removal:

18apollo(1227 comments)posted 6 years ago

How true Tyler. But the conservative agenda only has so many boogy men to blame. FDR, Clinton, and the liberal media. So all discussions eventually degrade into shouting matches since logic is not a trait that the right understands.

Your original opinion piece was 100% correct. If the free market is so great, then it should be applied equally to all and that includes corporations and investment banks.

Suggest removal:

19Woody(451 comments)posted 6 years ago

If we are going to apply the free market to everything, which I agree with, then lets do away with the minimum wage, FEMA handouts, labor unions (I am going to get hammered for that here I know), social security, and public schools (give every child a voucher that he can use to go to any school he wants).

Think the Vindy would cover that, me and Apollo going toe to toe, maybe a trivia/IQ type contest. Maybe invite all the other posters/bloggers from this site: OldManGrump, BullChip, Anita, City_Resident, and the rest.

Suggest removal:

20apollo(1227 comments)posted 6 years ago

Of course Woody forgot the other things that then also need eliminated.

Government subsidies to tobacco companies, government contributions to big pharma for disease eradication research, tax incentives for big oil corporations, tax loopholes for the wealthy, and other such social programs for the least in need.

Suggest removal:

21Woody(451 comments)posted 6 years ago

AMEN Apollo. You are sounding like a conservative more and more.

No more public funding of stadiums, eliminate the earned income tax credit, public housing, etc.

This is fun.

Suggest removal:

22Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 6 years ago

Personal responsiblity is a pre-requisite for liberty. The more liberty our government allows us,the more personal responsibility we must exercise. I believe in both liberty and personal responsibility, which is why I oppose our Nation's slovenly drift towards socialism.

Our government is spending us off the cliff. The dangerous financial irresponsibility of our "leaders" is not even a campaign topic. Maybe our children will sell some of the Hawaiian islands or National Parks to try to pay off our glutenous habits.

The government's bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a tiny symptom of a fatal disease. We need electoral reform to save our union, but myopia and slothfulness prevents such action.

For what it's worth...Iraq atacked the Kurds, the Iranians and Kuwait. Germany declared war on the USA after the Day of Infamy. FDR's gross and deadly mishandling of the economy and WWII (before and after our involvement) is a subject for another day.

Suggest removal:

23tylersclark(182 comments)posted 6 years ago

Woody, I wholeheartedly agree with you that there should be no more public funding for stadiums. Thanks for mentioning that one.

Suggest removal:

24apollo(1227 comments)posted 6 years ago

Woody, I agree that society need not use tax dollars as welfare for the wealthy as in funding stadiums for rich team owners.

But, I don't have a problem helping people who are down on their luck. This heartless conservatism and so called personal responsibility assumes that people who need help are lazy and in need through their own fault. Most people do not want to suck from the public teet. I am college educated and had a 6 month period where I was laid off and needed unemployment. I hated getting paid for doing nothing but it got my family through a tough time and was invaluable. Medicare and Social Security are necessary programs that benefit society by keeping many of the elderly out of the gutter.

Suggest removal:

25Erplane(475 comments)posted 6 years ago

Tyler -

Thanks for the interesting post. I disagree with a couple of your points. The govt has to step in to 'bail' out Freddie and Fannie b/c they are institutions dedicated to providing stability to the financial markets, but also to give people the ability to take out a loan. These guys didnt lend out subprime, they actually had strict credit standards that were in line with traditional stable housing markets. But the subprime effect has driven down prices so much that it effected the conventional markets. And to that people taking out ARMs that readjusted against them, and all of a sudden our conventional housing market is in jeopordy.

Much free market lovers, myself included, believe in the Adam Smith model, which has a limited but CRUCIAL role in government - to provide stability to the market. Helping JP buy Bear does seem like a favoring of rich I-bankers, I agree, but to not help them would have meant a run on the financial markets that would have had horrible potential for all Americans, including New York bankers and the guys working at Schwebels bakery.

There is alot of blame to go around - I blame alot on people who felt it okay to leverage their lives up and then go buy 2 SUVs, and a boat. Personal responsibility has fallen away in this country. But I blame our govt for allowing banks to give out subprime and liar loans without overseeing it. Alot of blame, not alot of answers.

Eric P

Suggest removal:

26tylersclark(182 comments)posted 6 years ago

Eric P, thanks for your comments. Paul Krugman of the New York Times, whom I respect very much, seems to agree with much of what you're saying: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opi...

Specifically:
- Fannie and Freddie are regulated against subprime lending, and are therefore not responsible for the current housing mess
- While there is a problem with how they're managed, it's in how thinly they're capitalized and the fact that they continue to escape responsibility for correcting this
- We (meaning I, in this case) shouldn't act so shocked that banks get bailed out in national financial crises, it happens every time
- Fannie and Freddie can't be allowed to fail, for the sake of the housing market and the economy

Suggest removal:

27Woody(451 comments)posted 6 years ago

Tyler,

Paul Krugman said just about what I said in my first post on this blog.

Suggest removal:

28apollo(1227 comments)posted 6 years ago

Come on Woody, YOU quoting a liberal journalist from the NY Times? Blasphemy!

But, I am a big fan of Krugman, and Rich, and Dowd, and Friedman and well all those liberal geniuses!

But few know that Krugman is also an economist!

But speculating about the need to bail out Bear Stearns is just that speculation. I doubt that BS (Hmmm, maybe those initials mean more than just Bear Stearns) failing would have caused the collapse of the free market economy and if it did, then we are in bigger trouble than we know.

Funny, too, how the CEO of BS was quoted just a couple of days prior to the bail out that they were in great shape.

Here's the problem!

Many of these firms are so levered up. In the case of BS I believe that it was 20-1 that a small run can cause havoc. The solution is to force these guys to not be so leveraged. Need more government oversight.

If these I-banks are to expect the taxpayers to bail them out, then government regulation must be tighter. Leveraging the balance sheet to the tune of 20-1 is a recipe for disaster.

Suggest removal:

29Erplane(475 comments)posted 6 years ago

Hey Tyler -

Your right, I did read the Paul Krugman piece, and it was certainly something I agreed with, and reinforced my position on Freddie and Fannie. I should have referenced the piece.

And I agree with Apollo that the I-banks should be subjected to greater regulation. However, leveraging the balance sheet 20-1 is not a recipe for disaster until confidence collapses. And it wasnt leverage alone that hurt Bear, it was the composition of that leverage.

Suggest removal:

30tylersclark(182 comments)posted 6 years ago

You're right, Woody. You and Krugman both said that allowing Fannie and Freddie to fail would hurt the economy. If you're looking for me to give you props for that, you've got 'em. I hadn't read his piece at that time, if you think I'm playing favorites or something.

Suggest removal:

31apollo(1227 comments)posted 6 years ago

Sure Erplane, if the values of assets never goes down, then leverage will never hurt you. Of course that isn't real world. In the case of mortgage backed securities, can you guarantee that they'll never go down? That's what many of these supposedly "smart" bankers were betting on. It worked for awhile while the property values kept climbing but as in every bubble, when it burst, it hurts. Being leveraged 20-1 doesn't provide much cushion on the downside. As Bear Stearns found out, it only took days for them to collapse.

Suggest removal:

32Woody(451 comments)posted 6 years ago

Actually I never read Krugman until Tyler pointed it out.

Suggest removal:

33apollo(1227 comments)posted 6 years ago

Woody, we'll have you converting to the dark side soon!

Suggest removal:

34Woody(451 comments)posted 6 years ago

I doubt it. I listen to and read a lot of stuff from the other side. I could probably make the liberal arguments for liberals as good as they could. I actually had to once back at YSU, I had to debate for the pro-choice side of the abortion issue.

Suggest removal:

35MzVirgoLuv(157 comments)posted 6 years ago

Look, everyone in here seems like they are well educated and have pretty good employment along with pretty okay lives. Here is the situation, we need REAL change. You can say what you want about wars and attacks on other countries, but what we need to address is the war here at home. Where, I went to college, but didn't get that dream job when I graduated and am left to pay double the student loans with barely enough money to cover everyday living; where even though I work, I still qualify for food stamps (not enough, mind you), section 8 and PIP/HEAP. Tell me why is there 8 middle eastern owned corner stores in a mile radius around my neighborhood but not 8 good schools in the whole city. So many people miss the point of everything. All the republicans look down on poor people and try not to address the issue and Dems (which I am) don't speak up or out loud enough to make a difference. I got a little .25 cent raise at my job and got cut more than $400 in food stamps, but I have more bills to pay. I pay over $500 a month in gasoline so that I may get back and forth to work, I pay over $200 a month in student loans (I have to pay or they will take my income tax rebate every year) and am trying to raise five kids. The welfare doesn't put student loans, gasoline and food you buy with your little bit of money into the budget for determining how much you should receive to feed your kids. You tell me why am I paying a higher tax than the guy who makes quadruple what I do. Can you all debate about that. While you ridicule Obama and say go back to your country club scene, he is the only candidate EVER that has been through my situation and knows what it's like to not have enough to even eat or borrowing money from your kids birthday cash for gas to get to work. Address those issues. War, yes, it was wrong to go to this war and so many others we have fought, but until we fight the war here at home, we will never be able to get on the right path. So many are so concerned with political debates in order to avoid the real issues and will argue issues that don't affect EVERYONE, but are easier to talk about. Let's find a solution to my problem and so many with my problem and blame the right people for this said problem. You are all speaking about abortion and this and that and abortion has been around for centuries, war has been around for centuries. Abortion is not the problem, it's a personal issue and that person deal with the repercussions of that personal decision. If a woman doesn't want to have a child because whatever reason, then that's between her and her God. Not the public. It's not paid for by tax payers so what is the big deal. War is, and so is unemployment. Let's deal with the real stuff before doing that Bush/Clinton tactic: Diversion.

Suggest removal:

36Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 6 years ago

MzVirgoLuv,

Your government is not the answer to your woes. You've got to find the solution elsewhere. The government can't afford what it gives people now, and it absolutely can't afford to give away more. The government actually causes more harm by wasted resources through inefficiency, and supression of voluntary charity through its penalties for hard work.

The Democratic Party will promise you just enough to buy your vote. It will not provide for you the life you want for yourself and your family. Are you really better off after the Democratic Party has ruled Youngstown for decades, or the Federal executive branch for most of the 1990's, or the legislative branch the last two years? I would never say another party is the answer either, but I believe the Democratic Party has shamefully divided America into two opposing groups ("Two Americas") for their own benefit.

No one has given me a thing. I had two Vindicator paper routes for years as a youth, and worked as a janitor beginning at 4 am prior to attending classes at YSU. I was denied scholarships due to my race and sex, and later denied jobs (and custody of my child) for the same reason. I have fully funded my education through student loans, which I can't pay down because the government is seizing my money and giving it others, in addition to a punitive child support award. I work very hard, long hours away from my family, and the more I make, the more the government takes.

I fully agree that the tax code is broken. Maybe you'd join me in supporting the fair tax, which eliminates the penalty for working (income tax) and eliminates a massive bureacracy (IRS). You can minimize the amount of taxes you pay by practicing thrift.

I don't want anyones money, I just want to keep more of the money I've been busting my butt for years for, so that I can pay my bills instead of others bills. Seem fair? I have one child because I can't afford two.

Obama, McCain, nor Uncle Sam are not the answer, just like Clinton nor Carter weren't the answer. YOU are the answer.

Suggest removal:

37MzVirgoLuv(157 comments)posted 6 years ago

I fully understand where you are coming from about the government not being the answer. Sorry if I disagree, because they are the ones who make the rules they are the ones who say who gets what. Yes, a lot of our lives is up to us and how we live it, but we don't have control over how much we get paid, how much taxes are taken out of our checks or how much the government will give to help. The government helps other countries more quickly and with more enthusiasm than it does it's own. Now maybe I'm a little out of the political loop when I say I don't understand you when you mention 'minimizing the amount of taxes I pay by practicing thrift..', but I have no control over how much taxes I pay. Even if I claimed all of my children on my fed & state, it's still won't make up for what I am not getting. It is very hard to survive on what I make. I have to not pay bills in order to buy clothes for my kids and then I'm backed up and have to pay double, I have not buy clothes for kids in order to by food, I have to not buy as much food if I want to have enough for cleaning and laundry supplies. My husband works and makes hardly nothing. It's just not enough, yet we are spending billions a MONTH in a country that was never a threat.
That surge they say worked so well, do people really know how it worked. Our government PAID them not to attack us. Our government is giving money to other countries when it can't take care of it's own.
Now, I really have to disagree with you on the Dem thing that they are the ones who have made this two Americas. They are not the ones who cut out the middle class, that was your idiotic friend Bush. Now I am just so far under the poverty guidelines, that people wonder how I get by off of less than $500 a week.
No one has ever given me anything either. For the years I was on public assistance, I worked too, so my taxes were paying for the assistance I was getting. I have done everything I can to do and be the citizen I could for this country with the favor not being returned. My plan for all of this is, if this country hasn't gotten it's stuff together by the time my children are grown, my husband and I are moving to another country where health care is free, college education is free, only four days a week & 35 hours a week are required for working and where you get vouchers for public transportation because the gas prices are so high. I am an optimistic person by nature and feel that all can live in harmony at some point or another eventually, but even that characteristic is leaving me when my bank account is low, car is low on gas and cupboards are low and you see no light at the end of the tunnel. And that's the dems fault. So it's the dems fault too that that couple in Boardman who has just as many kids as I do not even as much education or work experience but is making waaay more money than me paying LESS taxes than me? Get with what's really going on, HERE first then the rest of the country.

Suggest removal:

38jfuze0905(71 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

There is really no way that you were actually "paying" income tax and not getting it all refunded, considering the fact that you stated you received the socialist benefits in society.

You may have "paid" into the tax system, but my guess is that come tax refund time, you received all of your federal plus a little extra.

Suggest removal:



News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport