Well, he had quit smoking for 10+ years at that point, and was about 2 years out from a type 2 diabetes diagnosis that he had under control for over a year with diet and exercise alone (dropped 40 lbs from 225 to 185 over that time period).

Other than a broken arm from softball, he hasn't had any major health issues since (~2002-3 I think is when he lost his job) he was forced to pay those exorbitant costs.

5/6/2008 3:44:23 PM

Quote :

"I don't have a problem with some of my taxes helping families like these breath easier by not having to pay that 4 grand a year on health care."

Stella also what you do not understand is getting into the 30K/40K/50K likely people in these salary ranges are already provided with subsidized health insurances plans through their company. Unless they are self-employed or don't work full time. Worst case scenario since we are talking about household income is two parents earning 25K each. Even then this does not excuse people's responsibility from caring for themselves.

5/6/2008 3:48:35 PM

You have no clue at all. Really, you don't.

5/6/2008 3:51:05 PM

btw why as a starting grad should i have to sacrifice my standard of living to subsidize people who are by no means living below the poverty line. I am glad to have worked my ass off so i can pay for the universal health care of some middle aged dude making 50K a year so he can afford to have his wife stay at home all day to fuck the pool boy and sit on her ass.

^ I do actually. While i never qualified for need based grants and had to take out loans; people i know whose parents earn maybe 10K less then mine get more then enough money for tuition. So all i hear the first 2 weeks of school is "Dude i can't wait for my refund check to come in so i can get buy xyz expensive electronic or they go out and have a $200 bar tab.


[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 3:54 PM. Reason : a]

5/6/2008 3:51:13 PM

Quote :

"I don't have a problem with some of my taxes helping families like these breath easier by not having to pay that 4 grand a year on health care.""

Then just give 'em your own damn money, and not help yourself to some out of my wallet because it makes you feel good.

And I'll give money to the people I want to help. But you don't have the right to decide which 'good cause' my money goes toward.

Quote :

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. "

- Thomas Jefferson

In this case, the idea being propagated is that everyone in society has a legal right to confiscate wealth, through the government, if they can make enough others feel sufficiently sorry for them.

Regardless of whether there is a moral obligation to help them - your job would then be to convince me of my moral obligation to give them money. Your job is not to employ someone (the government) to threaten the use of force or imprisonment against me to extract the money for your moral purposes.

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 3:55 PM. Reason : a]

5/6/2008 3:52:42 PM

because we have a society. society has costs.

5/6/2008 3:52:44 PM

Quote :

"And I'll give money to the people I want to help. But you don't have the right to decide which 'good cause' my money goes toward."

we are not talking about the destitute or the struggling poor. So out of control his people expectation of gov't social programs those whose income are way above the poverty lines expect the gov't to pay for their health care and food costs

5/6/2008 3:56:40 PM

Quote :

"he was forced to pay those exorbitant costs. "

No he wasnt. Your dad had a choice. He choose to smoke, which raised his rates. He choose to eat unhealthy, so his rates were higher. He could have also shopped around for ins. Instead I bet he choose the cobra plan, that people are offered who qualify for unemployment.

Now if you want total subsidized healthcare, your dad wouldnt have to pay anything extra for his poor health choices and can continue to do so. He also would have more money bc he didnt have to pay for the extra costs. However, you and I would have less of our money to pay for his bad decisions.

Your dad should be commended for changing his lifestyle, I dont mean my views to take away from what he has done.

5/6/2008 3:57:56 PM

Quote :

"why as a starting grad should i have to sacrifice my standard of living to subsidize people who are by no means living below the poverty line"

seriously, I would like to eat something other than pb&j

Additionally, I think you're not entitled to something from the government simply because you want or need it.

5/6/2008 4:00:45 PM

Quote :

"Additionally, I think you're not entitled to something from the government simply because you want or need it."

I would suggest not phrasing it as if "the government" can give something to someone. "The government" doesn't pay for anything for anyone - it only facilitates the transfer from your neighbor to you.

The way you have it encourages the ignorance of the people who believe the government actually has things to give away that are its own and are free.

Instead, it would be more like "I think you're not entitled to take your neighbor's wealth simply because you want it or need it."

5/6/2008 4:04:18 PM

^ You're right, that's a better way to phrase it and more in line with what I meant.

5/6/2008 4:05:09 PM

well the government is handing out $600 checks this month.

I thought they just go to the treasury and make money to do this

5/6/2008 4:06:15 PM

I think the point Stella is making is people should live in harmony and have the consequences of their bad decisions alleviated through gov't social programs. Also, change happens but one should not be expected to change their lifestyle or adapt but merely look to uncle sam for help to cover the necessities so they do not have to sell their lexus.

5/6/2008 4:09:04 PM

^ Sometimes they do that - but that money is not free.

Government can 'fund' a gift either by taxation or simply printing the money, or borrowing. Taxation is obviously direct theft and transfer, and so is borrowing against the wealth of future workers, but printing the money is also. Each dollar printed, other things being equal, lowers the value of the dollars currently held - printing the money takes wealth from your neighbor just as much as taxation, though it is not as direct. Nothing is free, and anything the government spends is extracted from the existing earned wealth of individuals.

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 4:11 PM. Reason : a]

5/6/2008 4:10:23 PM

yet we wonder why gas and food are rising out of control. But at least i'm getting my $600 economic stimulus check!!

5/6/2008 4:12:36 PM

I think another question that hasnt been addressed in here yet is, if this hypothetical family is pulling in $50,000 consistently, and didnt have their sights set on making that much more, why did they have two kids to put them in the situation where they cant afford to raise them properly on $50,000 and then expect help?

seems to be a question that most people who want to continuously drain other people's money to give to the "lower class" dance around and avoid answering straight up. It is called being responsible for your decisions and actions. A lot of people respond and say that you can't deny the right to have a family as it improves the quality of life. I could argue that there are a lot of things that would improve the quality of my life that I can't afford. Am I entitled to government subsidies if I go out and buy them then?

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ]

5/6/2008 4:18:27 PM

Well since the median household income is around 50,000 according to Stella half of american families are struggling and are so desperate they need the gov't to step in and pay for their families healthcare. I call bullshit.

TO HELL WITH INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY; I WANT MY BMW, A 200K HOUSE, ONLY CLOTHES MADE BY RALPH LAUREN, BLING, TO HAVE $100 BAR TABS EVERYNIGHT.

5/6/2008 4:26:37 PM

All I can say is that both sets of my grandparents were DIRT poor with 0 college degrees between them and not even 4 high school diplomas between all 4 of them. Both grandmothers were uneducated and doing menial jobs (maids) and my grandfathers, one was a barber, one was a mail sorter at a post office. Living in upstate NY with the taxes, they could barely put food on the table for my parents sometimes, and certainly could not afford to send either of my parents to college.

My dad worked his tail off working 40+ hours a week for 5 years to get his college degree (and even then worked crap jobs for years) and after they had my sister and were having trouble making ends meet *gasp* my dad got a second job and *double gasp* my mom took out a loan and started going to nursing school at night after her normal 40 hours per week of work(hospital secretary)!

My dad is now a technical writing manager for a very promising startup company (left a huge company for this position) and my mom is the head of nursing in a county school system in NC. Between my parents and I paying for school I am now out with a job making the same salary that it took my dad 25 years to make. My parents also both finished going to UNCC at night this past year for my dad to obtain his Masters and my mom to get her BS (her nursing was Associates).

Most of the people my dad grew up with are working government jobs (prison guards most of them) and still living in that run down city because they didnt apply themselves. and my parents had ZERO more opportunities than any of their friends, they simply had a drive to give my sister and I a better life than their parents gave them, and look where its gone in 2 generations with a little hard work.

Maybe now people know why I have hardly any sympathy for people who want to rely on others to help them out on a consistent basis and dont put in the effort required to better their own lives.

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 4:49 PM. Reason : ]

5/6/2008 4:45:47 PM

Quote :

"No he wasnt. Your dad had a choice. He choose to smoke, which raised his rates. He choose to eat unhealthy, so his rates were higher. He could have also shopped around for ins. Instead I bet he choose the cobra plan, that people are offered who qualify for unemployment."

He is now approaching 20 years smoke free. His chance of lung cancer is getting pretty close to non smoker levels, his chance of coronary disease already is. His diabetes which wasn't even existing at the time of his layoff shouldn't have played any role in his insurance rate, but thats an idealogical battle.

The elephant in the room is really the rising, and rather frightening, cost of health care. This wouldn't even be a debate topic if this weren't the case.

^ Thats a lovely story, but you didn't say anything about your health care needs anywhere in there. Take that family, set them today, and then have any one of them need any sort of procedure (tonsils removed, appendix, kidney stones, blown knee playing on the playground, broken bones, etc) and they are shelling out 3-5 grand into the deductible, the one they have because they can't afford the extra 3 grand a year for the one with the lower deductible.

I wish you people would stop equating government support with lazy people, handouts, etc. If the problem is a return on your investment (in healthcare, in welfare, etc), then better government controls need to be put in place so the systems aren't abused, if this means tort reform, drug patent reform, or anything else that would improve the overhead cost of the beauracrcy, so be it.

5/6/2008 5:48:52 PM

stella do you think its the taxpayers job to pay for someone's erection meds, acne meds, or hair pills? Esp when they pay nothing for that coverage?

5/6/2008 5:52:29 PM

are we talking 53k a year in income, or 53k a year in taxable income. Because its not that hard to push 100k a year under 53k taxable and then your making out like a bandit with this

5/6/2008 6:17:49 PM

ok i'll go with stella for a second. Let's say richard moore has his way and wonderful universal health care showers all of our suffering North Carolinians making <250% the poverty line. Now what about us above the 250% poverty line? It does not take an economics professor to know that when the cost of a service or product is reduced the demand increases. With no economic penalty for seeking medical services those with universal health care have no penalty for going to the doctors office when not needed or blowing off unwise lifestyle choices that will increase the chance of needed additional medical attention.

With demand in medical services rising and given an inelastic supply of doctors/nurses it is obvious that the price of medical treatment will increase. This is fine for everyone living on the gov't healthcare budget. Now though all those lower middle class and upper middle class families that do not qualify for Mr. Moore's health care plan will face increased costs. Even your "student indebted college graduate" might be adversely effected. Since he has no dependents likely even on a meager 30K starting salary he will not only be getting taxed more to pay for universal health care for more well to-do households (just b.c they have kids) but also face increased costs for his own health care since the demand has risen.

^I'm pretty sure it is untaxed income. As this normalizes all salaries regardless of dependent tax credits.

^^ I almost forgot. The entire time we have been forgetting that those benefiting from this are the ones that pay NO or very minimal NC income tax in the first place!

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 6:33 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 6:33 PM. Reason : l]

5/6/2008 6:30:48 PM

^ right but how does it view things like 401k contributions (for example a married couple can dump 31k in this year)

5/6/2008 6:36:07 PM

Not sure

5/6/2008 6:37:33 PM

Quote :

"if both husband and wife are working and making only $25k each, chances are they aren't getting as good of a plan (or any at all)."

You are right. They aint getting much of a plan. And for people like this, I don't have as strong an object to them getting some help.

But when you are talking about daddy can pull in 50K, and momma can sit at home on her fat ass and do nothing, that changes things. That changes things A LOT. because at this point, there is no incentive for momma to go out and get a job and GET HER FAMILY OFF OF THIS PLAN. There is none.

Even worse, single momma pulling 50K is not eligible for this. It's just absurd. Single mommy or daddy pulling 50K needs more help than married daddy working and pulling in 50K w/ momma at home taking care of the babies. People have already mentioned how much child care costs. Well guess what? They are effectively getting it for free here, PLUS health care. That aint right. It's not right in any fashion.

I think 250% is ludicrous on the surface, but this plan makes it even worse, because it gives an incentive for not working. I mean, it shouldn't be a surprise, given that the democratic platform mainly consists of eliminating the middle class and making as many poor people as possible, because that expands their "base": people who want handouts. But still...

5/6/2008 6:42:13 PM

Either Richard Moore is VERY smart or VERY stupid.

If I was a working class rural republican dude and some guy came along saying if he was governor he would take care of my cost of health insurance/healthcare he may just win my vote. With the money i no longer have to pay as my contribution of the chicken factories group health insurance plan I could start making a new car payment for that Ford F-250 i've been wanting to buy.

Git-R-Dun Richard Moore.

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 6:48 PM. Reason : l]

5/6/2008 6:48:32 PM

^^ some very good points

5/6/2008 7:27:59 PM

there is a lot of stupid in this thread, and after reading all of it there is too much to address so I doubt that my statements will be constructed in a well organized manner, but i've got to say something, and i wouldn't read this many words, but fuck it.

for starters, it makes me laugh that HUR speaks of making wise financial decisions and putting forth the necessities before the wants, especially in regards to providing the best that one can for their family, then provides his family as an example of one that has done so, yet after claiming he comes from a family that wasn't in a situation to pay for his college he cites his father was going to buy a new acura TL but couldn't and had to get a reasonably dated quality car like a civic instead as his sacrifice. one would like to think his father would rather have planned to get an economically viable car in the first place and perhaps help ease the burden of college costs from resting on his son's shoulders.

another thing that tickles me is when i hear people who are in college and not out working on their own speak sternly about how others are unrealistic/don't know the real world/operating idealistically. This is most apparent with those who are unwaivering and hardlined conservatives. i won't even suggest i know it all, because i don't, but i have been working for a while now and i do know the clear cut and encompassing world view i held about how easy it was to survive and how much money it took to live was completely formed out of nothing but ignorance. I suggest others who have been writing in this thread have arrived at their conclusions the same way.

50k a year for a family of four really isn't much at all. The thing is there are factors as a college student of which you are not aware. Sure, you may be more aware than most to the factors and surprises that come into play, but there are many of these which you've never conceived and additional long term results that have been neglected as well.

50k/year * .75 = 37.5k. I'll use this figure as an estimate of what they'd receive after taxes, since having three dependents (1 spouse + 2 kids) gives you credits and credits exist for child care. I was taxed higher than this total when I made 50k/year.

650/month for rent * 12 = 7800/year. I chose this figure because it'll provide for a two bedroom apartment that is decent enough.

650/month for child care * 12 = 7800/year (a bullshit figure, but strikingly less than the 900/month)

car payment 225/month (if they have little cash, they likely didn't buy a car outright. 225/month would provide a car that is going to continue to run but not have many features)

50/week in gasoline = 2600/year
car insurance = 1000/year
car tax = 250/year

150/week in groceries = 7800/year (I spend 60 a week in groceries even though I mostly eat pasta, shop on VIC and never buy beer. Assuming less than 3x my bill for an additional 3 people I don't consider unreasonable.)

200/month for gas/electric/water = 2400/year (no cable or tv of any sort and some sort of phone is needed, not necessarily a cell)

100/month miscellaneous = 1200/year (oil changes, cleaning supplies, hair cuts, car registration etc...)

After low balling all costs of only the expenses that came to the top of my head a total of 33,850/year is reached, in expenses alone, all of which are necessities. In all likelihood the total sum of those items would amount to much more than what we have here, regardless, the 3.6k left of over a year would hardly be enough to create any sort of safety net in case of lay-offs and doesn't provide a sizable amount to invest in ones retirement, especially if health care was added to the mix. I have many more thoughts on this issue and reasons to further support what i've claimed; however, I will not share them now as the post has become quite long and i'm sure i'll have plenty of chances to divulge those once some people flame away.

5/7/2008 11:20:29 AM

Well, then here's your first flame:

None of that answers the most fundamental question.

Imagine a world of three persons. A, B, and the one with the guns we'll call G (the government).

Why does person A, regardless of income or situation, have a right to convince person G to point his gun at person B, threaten violence, take B's money, and hand it over to A? In what possible universe is that a moral action?

5/7/2008 11:33:07 AM

^
wins

5/7/2008 11:37:35 AM

Quote :

"viable car in the first place and perhaps help ease the burden of college costs from resting on his son's shoulders. "

For one thing it is not my dad's responsibility to provide me with money for college tuition or to hold my hand throughout life. No one paid for his education and after 18 years of paying to raise me what is the problem if he wanted to spend a little money on himself. Unlike whiny liberals I do not expect others to give me free handouts my whole life.

^^^ I still can't get over the fact that all of a sudden 250% above the poverty line is now part of the "struggling masses" and needs to be in gov't funded healthcare and food stamps

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 11:41 AM. Reason : a]

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM. Reason : s]

5/7/2008 11:37:49 AM

In what world does person A have the right to say that he chooses not to add anything to the society that put him in the place that he is, while taking advantage of things past A's and B's have done?

I'm sure that you can go tough it out in the vast wilderness somewhere if you really think you don't owe anything to society.

5/7/2008 11:48:17 AM

You are confusing the issue of charity vs. welfare.

I do have a moral obligation to help those who have problems and are working to fix them. And I do - volunteering at the food bank, giving >10% of my gross to charity, etc.

But that is a moral obligation. And I have no problem with A trying to convince B that B should give money, help, etc. Sometimes there is a good reason for B to do that, sometimes not, but that is B's choice.

There is nothing moral about pointing a gun at someone to ensure they do what you believe is their moral duty to help the poor. To take their wealth by force is theft plain and simple. To steal from the greedy is just as wrong as stealing from the poor.

I find it terribly ironic that those hippies and liberals who are all about peace, love, harmony, and non-violent solutions build their entire economic system around the threat of violence.

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 11:54 AM. Reason : a]

5/7/2008 11:52:13 AM

^^^^

yea a family for 4 making 50k (25k taxable) a year pays about 963 (2962 -2000 in credits) in federal income tax in a year. That will leave them a fair amount more take home then you are estimating.

5/7/2008 11:52:48 AM

Quote :

"I find it terribly ironic that those hippies and liberals who are all about peace, love, harmony, and non-violent solutions build their entire economic system around the threat of violence."

so is it equally deplorable to make people support a military through their taxes? (at the point of a gun)

5/7/2008 11:55:42 AM

What are we going to have next; government subsidized BMW's so struggling americans can get the same opportunity to drive a sporty european sedan since it is not fair that they can not afford one with the current status quo.

We are not talking about eliminating food stamps for those in poverty; ending the current status quo of subsidized housing forcing millions on the street; or kicking hobos out of the ER when they have a medical emergency.

The issue is those well above the poverty line, 250% above, as Richard Moore proposes expecting to shrug complete responsibility in taking care of their medical expenses to be paid for by the tax payer. Also working class people who currently receive food stamps $70/wk like the mother of 1, in the example i provided, demanding more money from the gov't instead of making other lifestyle changes to adjust to the added cost of food lately. All of which comes down to people increasingly not wanting to take responsibility for their poor choices that prevented them from meeting their full potential and expecting others to cover their shortfall. Social Programs that were created solely to help the poor are know creeping larger slowly evolving into a full out socialist program where a great plurality of people rely on gov't social services.

Social Security when originally created was by no means meant to serve as "supplemental income" for all retirees which it pretty much has turned into.

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 12:08 PM. Reason : a]

5/7/2008 12:00:46 PM

That is what distinguishes me from an anarchist, and that is a good question as you are checking to see if I am internally consistent.

Yes, I do believe in a tax-funded military and court system for enforcing penalties against violations of individual rights, and settling contract disputes. Societal protection of life, liberty and property is the role of government, and no more or less.

But, I would recognize that if a stupor overcomes the people, and an unjust war is launched, each individual would have the right to withhold their taxes for the funding of that war. A minimum for the maintenance of the military without the war, plus the court system, would still be mandatory.

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 12:03 PM. Reason : a]

5/7/2008 12:02:07 PM

Quote :

"so is it equally deplorable to make people support a military through their taxes? (at the point of a gun)"

The greater issue with today's military isn't that it's being funded by the American public, it's whether or not it's current mission is serving the American public... isn't it? I mean, do you really feel that it isn't the federal government's job to protect the American public?

I'd still think there is a strong argument against a direct unapportioned tax paying for the military, instead of some other less coercive (possibly consumption based) form of taxation.

5/7/2008 12:06:24 PM

^^
wins again

Quote :

"You are confusing the issue of charity vs. welfare. I do have a moral obligation to help those who have problems and are working to fix them. And I do - volunteering at the food bank, giving >10% of my gross to charity, etc. But that is a moral obligation. And I have no problem with A trying to convince B that B should give money, help, etc. Sometimes there is a good reason for B to do that, sometimes not, but that is B's choice. There is nothing moral about pointing a gun at someone to ensure they do what you believe is their moral duty to help the poor. To take their wealth by force is theft plain and simple. To steal from the greedy is just as wrong as stealing from the poor. I find it terribly ironic that those hippies and liberals who are all about peace, love, harmony, and non-violent solutions build their entire economic system around the threat of violence."

and again


threepeat!

5/7/2008 12:08:14 PM

Quote :

"viable car in the first place and perhaps help ease the burden of college costs from resting on his son's shoulders. "

I don't support the Iraq war so i voted against Bush in 04 and the republican candidate for congress. I may hate the jarheads that are starting fights and hitting on my girls at teh bar; but if you do not think we should have a military you are an idiot.

5/7/2008 12:11:43 PM

Quote :

"Imagine a world of three persons. A, B, and the one with the guns we'll call G (the government). Why does person A, regardless of income or situation, have a right to convince person G to point his gun at person B, threaten violence, take B's money, and hand it over to A? In what possible universe is that a moral action?"

How about I imagine a world of 300 million As and Bs that I inherited from many previous A's and B's. Long ago, it was decided that all the A's and B's....


you see where this is going. Your little analogy doesn't have any real world application in regards to morality. Furthermore, I object to the extreme "pointing of a gun, threaten violence" example you took. Assuming B just refused to hand A the money under the system that he and A agreed upon earlier, then G could dole out the punishment, again, that A and B agreed upon earlier. You left out a lot of fun details in your overly simplistic analogy.

5/7/2008 12:16:39 PM

Where do we draw the line then?

When every American home has a Lexus, a 50" flat screen, free gov't provided food, subsidized housing costs b.c OMG RENT HAS BEEN GOING UP A LOT, gov't funded health care, and everyone is promised a job.

What a min....

I think this system has been tried before

hmmm..

oh yeah i remember..



and look how well that experiment turned out. Yeah teh revolution to cure of the plight of teh poor and working class SOUNDS GREAT. However, in practicality it turned out not to work.

5/7/2008 12:44:09 PM

Quote :

"I spend 60 a week in groceries even though I mostly eat pasta, shop on VIC and never buy beer. "

That's unrealistic. You can easily spend 1/3 of that and get all the calories you need. WTF are you putting on that pasta, caviar?

5/7/2008 2:24:41 PM

There is nutritious food and then there is Ramen.

5/7/2008 2:25:59 PM

If someone is taking my food money and spending it on free healthcare for other people, those people better not be spending more per week on food than I am.

5/7/2008 2:33:32 PM

Quote :

"If someone is taking my food money and spending it on free healthcare for other people, those people better not be spending more per week on food than I am."

5/7/2008 2:34:45 PM

Quote :

"That's unrealistic. You can easily spend 1/3 of that and get all the calories you need. WTF are you putting on that pasta, caviar? "

Did you read teh article i posted? The woman it is about shares her sob story about the struggle to feed her and her 8 month old child even AFTER getting $78 in food stamps EVERY WEEK! By the end of the month she has to resort to eating PB&J and ramen noodles . It even mentions she gets FREE LUNCH at her job during the week.

Maybe food is three times more expensive in Washington or she is eating T-Bone steak everynight and gets the gourmet boxed food.

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 2:43 PM. Reason : aa]

5/7/2008 2:39:29 PM

Some of us resort to eating pb&j and ramen noodles EVERY DAY

I don't think food is that more expensive in Washington, though formula for a baby isn't cheap from what I hear

5/7/2008 2:55:09 PM

IRSeriousCat

Quote :

"50k/year * .75 = 37.5k. I'll use this figure as an estimate of what they'd receive after taxes, since having three dependents (1 spouse + 2 kids) gives you credits and credits exist for child care. I was taxed higher than this total when I made 50k/year."

LOL, just stop right there. That's ridiculous. A family of 4 making 50K/year will never approach those kind of numbers in taxes. Not even close. More likely, the Government would be paying them.

And is it just me, or is StellaArtois the new BridgetSPK? She's got the same presumptious posting style when talking about how tough it is for poor people.

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 3:02 PM. Reason : 2]

5/7/2008 3:01:33 PM

A few things.

^ and ^xwhateveritwas. I did the figures based on how I was taxed and admitted at the start that I wasn't sure what the taxation was in that given situation. I have now looked it up and they would pay around 6k in taxes but get every last bit of it back.

also

Quote :

"That's unrealistic. You can easily spend 1/3 of that and get all the calories you need. WTF are you putting on that pasta, caviar? "

No. My grocery list for the most part is this: 1loaf of bread, 1bag of bagels, 1bunch of bananas, 1tub of spinach, 1tub of rice, 1bag of HT brand pasta, 1pack of turkey, 1pack of cheese, and 2 - 3lbs chicken. Its really nothing that fancy, but my main sides each evening are usually pasta, or i'll have chicken mixed in with my pasta. other things slip in of course, tooth paste, razors, deodorant, shampoo, pasta sauce, salad dressing, on and on and on, but the despite the purchases made the bulk of what I eat is pasta. Also, there is no way for me to spend $20 at the grocery store and get all the calories I need. If you're going to disagree then start by doing so with points that make sense. I could manage to get all the calories i need if i ate at mcdonalds or wendy's off the dollar menu everyday; however, i practice preventative care for health as to not add to the rising cost of health care.

i have more to say but need to finish more here at work before i can truly stand on my soap box.

5/7/2008 3:35:31 PM