|
|
On October 02 2012 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 03:07 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 23:48 ZasZ. wrote:On October 01 2012 17:25 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 15:20 -_-Quails wrote:On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:On September 30 2012 01:19 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote:
Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system... The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy. Tax is not theft, it is the fee paid in order to live in society. Just as you must pay fees levied by the administration of a housing complex you live in, should they choose to levy them in order to provide ongoing maintenance and services, so too must you pay the fees levied by the administration of the nation you live in, that they too may provide ongoing maintenance and services. And just as the administration of a housing complex might vary the fees for occupants in different situations to provide on average the greatest benefit to occupants for the least impact, perhaps charging more for the occupier of a penthouse than a studio, the administrators of a nation might vary the fees they levy according to the situation of each citizen. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a housing complex - proximity to amenities, schools, or places of employment; security systems; doormen and maintenance staff; leisure facilities; inbuilt utilities such as running water, gas, electricity, phone lines; or a comfortable lifestyle - then you can give up that occupancy and find yourself a more compatible place of residence. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a nation - economic and educational opportunities. including access to schools and employment at sites within that country; police force, armed forces and judicial system to protect you from internal and external threats; emergency services to help out in times of crisis; a healthcare system; an infrastructure system; and distribution systems for food, medicine, clothing, clean water and hundreds of other goods, services and necessities that make modern life possible even in areas far above the local carrying capacity of the land or lacking in key resources - then you are free to drop your citizenship and move to a country that better meets your needs. Otherwise, pay your fees to the administration that offers you a better chance at the lifestyle you want than any other. That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard of. A housing complex and the U.S. government are NOT comparable in any way. I have never understood why it is considered greed to keep what you have earned, but not considered greed to take from others. Are you completely out of touch with reality? He takes his analogy a bit far, but at it's core a housing complex and the U.S. government are comparable in a lot of ways. It's not greed to want to keep what you have earned, as long as you make sure not to use public schools, public transportation, interstate highways, student loans, etc. etc. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, and there are many areas of the budget where we can trim the fat and get rid of useless bureaucracy, but you really don't see the necessity of taxation? Public works projects and infrastructure cost money, and last I checked running a municipal, state, or federal government rarely rakes in the dollars without taxes. If your issue is with corruption, or your money not going where you want it to go, then it is a whole separate issue. But taxes are a necessary evil. And the concept that the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor in taxes is not one without any merit. A single mother paying 30% of her income in taxes will find that much more oppressive than a multi-millionaire paying the same percentage...he may just have to scale down the size of his next yacht. I realize this may not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy, but we're trying to pay back a deficit here while maintaining much of the budget, and the poor people definitely can't help with that. But that gets into a whole different tax argument that I understand is controversial. But not wanting to pay any taxes at all is a bit naive. It is funny that you used the word "fair" when you said it might not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy when Obama himself wants to do exactly what you said isn't fair for reasons of fairness, even if it doesn't actually help anyone. This is a straw-man. "Fairness" means different things when you're talking about different goals. On an individual basis, it isn't fair to make the rich pay more than the poor in taxes.
If this is true, then it's certainly unfair for them to pay less. Can someone explain to me how it's unfair for the rich to pay more in taxes? They're not getting wealthy in a vacuum, they've used the infrastructure, markets, and public domains of the nation to amass wealth. I honestly don't consider it unfair to take a larger percentage of a millionaire's income than the guy making $80,000 per year. I don't think it's unfair to expect corporations to pay their share. That's the way society should operate in my opinion.
|
On October 02 2012 10:30 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:On October 02 2012 03:07 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 23:48 ZasZ. wrote:On October 01 2012 17:25 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 15:20 -_-Quails wrote:On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:On September 30 2012 01:19 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote:
Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system... The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy. Tax is not theft, it is the fee paid in order to live in society. Just as you must pay fees levied by the administration of a housing complex you live in, should they choose to levy them in order to provide ongoing maintenance and services, so too must you pay the fees levied by the administration of the nation you live in, that they too may provide ongoing maintenance and services. And just as the administration of a housing complex might vary the fees for occupants in different situations to provide on average the greatest benefit to occupants for the least impact, perhaps charging more for the occupier of a penthouse than a studio, the administrators of a nation might vary the fees they levy according to the situation of each citizen. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a housing complex - proximity to amenities, schools, or places of employment; security systems; doormen and maintenance staff; leisure facilities; inbuilt utilities such as running water, gas, electricity, phone lines; or a comfortable lifestyle - then you can give up that occupancy and find yourself a more compatible place of residence. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a nation - economic and educational opportunities. including access to schools and employment at sites within that country; police force, armed forces and judicial system to protect you from internal and external threats; emergency services to help out in times of crisis; a healthcare system; an infrastructure system; and distribution systems for food, medicine, clothing, clean water and hundreds of other goods, services and necessities that make modern life possible even in areas far above the local carrying capacity of the land or lacking in key resources - then you are free to drop your citizenship and move to a country that better meets your needs. Otherwise, pay your fees to the administration that offers you a better chance at the lifestyle you want than any other. That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard of. A housing complex and the U.S. government are NOT comparable in any way. I have never understood why it is considered greed to keep what you have earned, but not considered greed to take from others. Are you completely out of touch with reality? He takes his analogy a bit far, but at it's core a housing complex and the U.S. government are comparable in a lot of ways. It's not greed to want to keep what you have earned, as long as you make sure not to use public schools, public transportation, interstate highways, student loans, etc. etc. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, and there are many areas of the budget where we can trim the fat and get rid of useless bureaucracy, but you really don't see the necessity of taxation? Public works projects and infrastructure cost money, and last I checked running a municipal, state, or federal government rarely rakes in the dollars without taxes. If your issue is with corruption, or your money not going where you want it to go, then it is a whole separate issue. But taxes are a necessary evil. And the concept that the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor in taxes is not one without any merit. A single mother paying 30% of her income in taxes will find that much more oppressive than a multi-millionaire paying the same percentage...he may just have to scale down the size of his next yacht. I realize this may not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy, but we're trying to pay back a deficit here while maintaining much of the budget, and the poor people definitely can't help with that. But that gets into a whole different tax argument that I understand is controversial. But not wanting to pay any taxes at all is a bit naive. It is funny that you used the word "fair" when you said it might not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy when Obama himself wants to do exactly what you said isn't fair for reasons of fairness, even if it doesn't actually help anyone. This is a straw-man. "Fairness" means different things when you're talking about different goals. On an individual basis, it isn't fair to make the rich pay more than the poor in taxes. If this is true, then it's certainly unfair for them to pay less. Can someone explain to me how it's unfair for the rich to pay more in taxes? They're not getting wealthy in a vacuum, they've used the infrastructure, markets, and public domains of the nation to amass wealth. I honestly don't consider it unfair to take a larger percentage of a millionaire's income than the guy making $80,000 per year. I don't think it's unfair to expect corporations to pay their share. That's the way society should operate in my opinion.
There aren't enough millionaires to tax.
http://www.capgemini.com/m/en/doc/WWR_INFOGRAPHIC_FINAL.pdf
And that number is liquid wealth over $1 million. About 3.3 million people.
And Less than 300,000 people had a taxable AGI of over $1 million in 2010.
300,000 folks with $1m+ incomes is not going to make a dent in the funding commitements to a population of 315 million people, even if you taxed them at 100%.
|
On September 30 2012 01:36 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2012 01:30 Kaitlin wrote:On September 30 2012 01:28 Souma wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote:
Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? Once again, attorneys, doctors, pharmacists, nurses, engineers, teachers, professors, (aka professionals/academia), also Jews, Hollywood and most college-educated folk tend to vote Democrat. You have absolutely no basis when you say 'a bunch of people who don't want to sacrifice anything.' Yeah poor people make up a significant portion of the Democratic party. So do smart people. *shrug* LOL @ doctors voting democrat. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/health/policy/30docs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0And there was a study in the Annals of Internal Medicine that said 59% of doctors approved of a national health insurance system. Will you shut up now? Not the study I was talking about, but another chart on national health insurance: ![[image loading]](http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/NHI-Support.jpg) I'm sure it's increased by now.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/survey-doctors-choose-romney-over-obama/
|
On October 02 2012 11:10 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2012 01:36 Souma wrote:On September 30 2012 01:30 Kaitlin wrote:On September 30 2012 01:28 Souma wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote:
Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? Once again, attorneys, doctors, pharmacists, nurses, engineers, teachers, professors, (aka professionals/academia), also Jews, Hollywood and most college-educated folk tend to vote Democrat. You have absolutely no basis when you say 'a bunch of people who don't want to sacrifice anything.' Yeah poor people make up a significant portion of the Democratic party. So do smart people. *shrug* LOL @ doctors voting democrat. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/health/policy/30docs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0And there was a study in the Annals of Internal Medicine that said 59% of doctors approved of a national health insurance system. Will you shut up now? Not the study I was talking about, but another chart on national health insurance: I'm sure it's increased by now. http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/survey-doctors-choose-romney-over-obama/
I'm gonna pull a Fox News and claim that poll was scewed to favor Romney lol.
Just quickly glancing at the site and the comments, it's far and away supporting Romney. Calling the doctors who supported ACA to be marxists and that they were probably illegal immigrants.
Interesting to note that the people who were against the ACA were doctors who practiced privately or had a major stake in their private practice while the doctors who worked publicly for hospitals and weren't in private practices strongly supported the law.
edit: Founded by a republican politician who is a former advisor to Dick Cheney, ya totally fair and balanced site you got there with no agenda at all.
|
On October 02 2012 11:29 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 11:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 30 2012 01:36 Souma wrote:On September 30 2012 01:30 Kaitlin wrote:On September 30 2012 01:28 Souma wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote:
Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? Once again, attorneys, doctors, pharmacists, nurses, engineers, teachers, professors, (aka professionals/academia), also Jews, Hollywood and most college-educated folk tend to vote Democrat. You have absolutely no basis when you say 'a bunch of people who don't want to sacrifice anything.' Yeah poor people make up a significant portion of the Democratic party. So do smart people. *shrug* LOL @ doctors voting democrat. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/health/policy/30docs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0And there was a study in the Annals of Internal Medicine that said 59% of doctors approved of a national health insurance system. Will you shut up now? Not the study I was talking about, but another chart on national health insurance: I'm sure it's increased by now. http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/survey-doctors-choose-romney-over-obama/ I'm gonna pull a Fox News and claim that poll was scewed to favor Romney lol. Just quickly glancing at the site and the comments, it's far and away supporting Romney. Calling the doctors who supported ACA to be marxists and that they were probably illegal immigrants. Interesting to note that the people who were against the ACA were doctors who practiced privately or had a major stake in their private practice while the doctors who worked publicly for hospitals and weren't in private practices strongly supported the law.
Interesting, given how "pro-business" Obama is ...
|
On October 02 2012 10:26 Quintum_ wrote:
I wonder how much gridlock we are going see this election cycle. From what i am getting i see things staying the same, the dems keeping the presidency and the senate with repu. keeping the house. With obama being reelected it should take some wind out of the party of no but i just dont know. From there attitude is seems like they will let the country burn(well more so then it already is) before they compromise.
One could also argue that the current direction Obama is going is letting the country burn and the party of no is just trying to slow down the process.
The moment when one party has complete control and power (no checks and balances) is the moment things could potentially start going downhill real fast.
|
On October 02 2012 11:49 Gatored wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:26 Quintum_ wrote:
I wonder how much gridlock we are going see this election cycle. From what i am getting i see things staying the same, the dems keeping the presidency and the senate with repu. keeping the house. With obama being reelected it should take some wind out of the party of no but i just dont know. From there attitude is seems like they will let the country burn(well more so then it already is) before they compromise. One could also argue that the current direction Obama is going is letting the country burn and the party of no is just trying to slow down the process. The moment when one party has complete control and power (no checks and balances) is the moment things could potentially start going downhill real fast.
Checks and Balances are not there to stop political parties, If i remember my government classes correctly they did not imagine we would have a strictly two political party system like we do.
I really really dislike the way that the Republican Congress has abused their power, and even though I don't support or love Obama, I respect him and his vision for our Country, and I hope he has some chances to get some shit done in his second term.
|
On October 02 2012 12:01 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 11:49 Gatored wrote:On October 02 2012 10:26 Quintum_ wrote:
I wonder how much gridlock we are going see this election cycle. From what i am getting i see things staying the same, the dems keeping the presidency and the senate with repu. keeping the house. With obama being reelected it should take some wind out of the party of no but i just dont know. From there attitude is seems like they will let the country burn(well more so then it already is) before they compromise. One could also argue that the current direction Obama is going is letting the country burn and the party of no is just trying to slow down the process. The moment when one party has complete control and power (no checks and balances) is the moment things could potentially start going downhill real fast. Checks and Balances are not there to stop political parties, If i remember my government classes correctly they did not imagine we would have a strictly two political party system like we do. I really really dislike the way that the Republican Congress has abused their power, and even though I don't support or love Obama, I respect him and his vision for our Country, and I hope he has some chances to get some shit done in his second term.
Is it really that difficult to comprehend that a significant part of this Country sees things differently than you do, and they elect Representatives as well ?
As for gridlock, a couple posts up, compromise is a two-way street. Giving in to what Obama wants is not compromise. Considering Obama has been utterly unwilling to compromise, except when he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts, it looks like we're headed for more gridlock and Obama's next four years will be as much of a failure as the first four, assuming he wins re-election.
|
If this is true, then it's certainly unfair for them to pay less. Can someone explain to me how it's unfair for the rich to pay more in taxes? They're not getting wealthy in a vacuum, they've used the infrastructure, markets, and public domains of the nation to amass wealth. I honestly don't consider it unfair to take a larger percentage of a millionaire's income than the guy making $80,000 per year. I don't think it's unfair to expect corporations to pay their share. That's the way society should operate in my opinion.
They aren't in this upper class vacuum where they don't respond to government biting either. For them, it might mean one less yacht or vacation a year. To the people that are out of jobs at the factories and vacation destinations, it matters quite a bit more. This kind of engineering is no good. I also use roads and bridges built with my tax money to earn my <200,000$ a year. So I guess its unfair for me to want to reduce my tax burden along with everybody else's when its so clear that the government refuses to live within its means. Petulant child government, that wants it now and wants more!
And, may I add, that a millionaire CEO has never taken my money, but I voluntarily spend it on products and services I like that they produce. The government, on the other hand, takes my money and doesn't have to show anything for it but his pretty mug every few years asking for votes.
You want to create more poor through tax policy, be my guest. That's all you're doing. I get the idea that there's a few of you here that think the rich stuff the money under their mattress, all the money they make. You know, the scrooge mcduck stash of money earned off the little guy.
No, it's invested. Invested in companies that generate returns in a capitalist society. That can choose to expand their business and hire on more workers with various skill sets. Kill the rich and you kill the goose that laid the golden egg. The rich can and will work at a diminished capacity as more money is taken from them, KNOWING that the extra effort they put in to earn even more money is being stolen from right under their eyes. It's simply not worth the effort if you keep only 40 cents for every dollar you earn.
With the government sneering behind your back that they were really the ones that enabled you to go out and earn all that money. Might as well tax it and give it to the mothers of the millionaires, because they gave birth which enabled the millionaires to go out and earn all that money. When you marginalize hard work and the price you pay for success, nothing good comes out of it, and indeed quite a bit of bad is accrued.
|
On October 02 2012 12:11 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 12:01 BlueBird. wrote:On October 02 2012 11:49 Gatored wrote:On October 02 2012 10:26 Quintum_ wrote:
I wonder how much gridlock we are going see this election cycle. From what i am getting i see things staying the same, the dems keeping the presidency and the senate with repu. keeping the house. With obama being reelected it should take some wind out of the party of no but i just dont know. From there attitude is seems like they will let the country burn(well more so then it already is) before they compromise. One could also argue that the current direction Obama is going is letting the country burn and the party of no is just trying to slow down the process. The moment when one party has complete control and power (no checks and balances) is the moment things could potentially start going downhill real fast. Checks and Balances are not there to stop political parties, If i remember my government classes correctly they did not imagine we would have a strictly two political party system like we do. I really really dislike the way that the Republican Congress has abused their power, and even though I don't support or love Obama, I respect him and his vision for our Country, and I hope he has some chances to get some shit done in his second term. Is it really that difficult to comprehend that a significant part of this Country sees things differently than you do, and they elect Representatives as well ? As for gridlock, a couple posts up, compromise is a two-way street. Giving in to what Obama wants is not compromise. Considering Obama has been utterly unwilling to compromise, except when he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts, it looks like we're headed for more gridlock and Obama's next four years will be as much of a failure as the first four, assuming he wins re-election.
No actually I don't think it's that difficult to understand.. I do understand that completely..
. I said "I" dislike the way they have abused their power, that is an opinion and I stand by that, don't think that the entire country stands by me on that. All I was commenting on was that checks and balances were not created to keep the Republicans from getting too out of hand or the Democrats from getting too out of hand, it was too keep a specific branch of government from getting too much power., for instance The president doesn't just get to wave his hands and everyone does his bidding, there is a political process. He is not a dictator or monarch, stopping practically everything one person is trying to do, is pretty stupid.
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard.
|
On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard.
No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing.
|
On October 02 2012 10:58 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:30 sevencck wrote:On October 02 2012 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:On October 02 2012 03:07 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 23:48 ZasZ. wrote:On October 01 2012 17:25 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 15:20 -_-Quails wrote:On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:On September 30 2012 01:19 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system... The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy. Tax is not theft, it is the fee paid in order to live in society. Just as you must pay fees levied by the administration of a housing complex you live in, should they choose to levy them in order to provide ongoing maintenance and services, so too must you pay the fees levied by the administration of the nation you live in, that they too may provide ongoing maintenance and services. And just as the administration of a housing complex might vary the fees for occupants in different situations to provide on average the greatest benefit to occupants for the least impact, perhaps charging more for the occupier of a penthouse than a studio, the administrators of a nation might vary the fees they levy according to the situation of each citizen. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a housing complex - proximity to amenities, schools, or places of employment; security systems; doormen and maintenance staff; leisure facilities; inbuilt utilities such as running water, gas, electricity, phone lines; or a comfortable lifestyle - then you can give up that occupancy and find yourself a more compatible place of residence. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a nation - economic and educational opportunities. including access to schools and employment at sites within that country; police force, armed forces and judicial system to protect you from internal and external threats; emergency services to help out in times of crisis; a healthcare system; an infrastructure system; and distribution systems for food, medicine, clothing, clean water and hundreds of other goods, services and necessities that make modern life possible even in areas far above the local carrying capacity of the land or lacking in key resources - then you are free to drop your citizenship and move to a country that better meets your needs. Otherwise, pay your fees to the administration that offers you a better chance at the lifestyle you want than any other. That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard of. A housing complex and the U.S. government are NOT comparable in any way. I have never understood why it is considered greed to keep what you have earned, but not considered greed to take from others. Are you completely out of touch with reality? He takes his analogy a bit far, but at it's core a housing complex and the U.S. government are comparable in a lot of ways. It's not greed to want to keep what you have earned, as long as you make sure not to use public schools, public transportation, interstate highways, student loans, etc. etc. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, and there are many areas of the budget where we can trim the fat and get rid of useless bureaucracy, but you really don't see the necessity of taxation? Public works projects and infrastructure cost money, and last I checked running a municipal, state, or federal government rarely rakes in the dollars without taxes. If your issue is with corruption, or your money not going where you want it to go, then it is a whole separate issue. But taxes are a necessary evil. And the concept that the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor in taxes is not one without any merit. A single mother paying 30% of her income in taxes will find that much more oppressive than a multi-millionaire paying the same percentage...he may just have to scale down the size of his next yacht. I realize this may not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy, but we're trying to pay back a deficit here while maintaining much of the budget, and the poor people definitely can't help with that. But that gets into a whole different tax argument that I understand is controversial. But not wanting to pay any taxes at all is a bit naive. It is funny that you used the word "fair" when you said it might not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy when Obama himself wants to do exactly what you said isn't fair for reasons of fairness, even if it doesn't actually help anyone. This is a straw-man. "Fairness" means different things when you're talking about different goals. On an individual basis, it isn't fair to make the rich pay more than the poor in taxes. If this is true, then it's certainly unfair for them to pay less. Can someone explain to me how it's unfair for the rich to pay more in taxes? They're not getting wealthy in a vacuum, they've used the infrastructure, markets, and public domains of the nation to amass wealth. I honestly don't consider it unfair to take a larger percentage of a millionaire's income than the guy making $80,000 per year. I don't think it's unfair to expect corporations to pay their share. That's the way society should operate in my opinion. There aren't enough millionaires to tax. http://www.capgemini.com/m/en/doc/WWR_INFOGRAPHIC_FINAL.pdfAnd that number is liquid wealth over $1 million. About 3.3 million people. And Less than 300,000 people had a taxable AGI of over $1 million in 2010. 300,000 folks with $1m+ incomes is not going to make a dent in the funding commitements to a population of 315 million people, even if you taxed them at 100%.
The quantity of people isn't nearly as important as the amount of money they each would be taxed.
It's something like a 2% tax on the top 1% is equal to 50% income of all the people who don't pay taxes. I forget the exact quote, but it's pretty telling.
|
On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing.
There's a caveat to your claim that a majority of the country wants obstructionist Republicans in the House, and that caveat is gerrymandering. While gerrymandering is a problem from both sides, the Republicans got to redraw the new districts, and if you've seen the shape of some of these distorted House districts it's much harder to say a majority of this or that wants anything.
Moreover, the obstructionism to the policies you tag 'liberfail' is starting to get out of hand in that Congress has basically done nothing since 2011. Here's my biggest beef with the Republican House and a lot of Republican candidates in general: they ran against Obamacare, yes, and on the notion that more needed to be done with the economy. Passing a ton of symbolic votes against Obamacare is an enormous waste of time; I think they've done it 33 times or so now? I accept that politics being politics they'll do it a few times, but that's absurd. Moreover, legislation of almost any kind has failed to move, and the Republican-controlled House spends most of its time dicking around with social policy legislation. Likewise a lot of state legislatures, yet their rallying cry in 2010 was the economy and anti-government sentiment. Yet they turn around and then say that using the power of government to regulate people's behavior is OK when it's their pet peeve?
I like to think that I'm a reasonable left-leaning person. I know that there have been times when candidates from the opposing party win the votes of liberals and vice versa. I might even say if I was faced with a superior conservative candidate over a mediocre liberal candidate I'd consider switching my vote, except for one thing - to me, it seems, whenever the Republicans get into power, whether they were running on it or not, the social issues come out from under the table and we begin the whole runaround again, trying to defund Planned Parenthood or passing a bunch of voter ID laws or trying to outlaw gay marriage and what have you. Given today's Republican Party, I do not support their stance on virtually any social issue, and thus I can never bring myself to vote for them because I know that as soon as they get into office the unintended consequences begin.
Had the House Republicans stayed focused on what they said they were going to do instead of wasting time railing against organizations, policies, and miscellany that they don't like, I might have even begrudgingly said that I support their focus on the economy. Instead we get things like a brawl over the debt limit, aforementioned social legislation, and in general an inability to do anything that might make Obama look even the least bit good even if the legislation in question is for the greater good of the country. Total gridlock helps no one at all; if you asked me, all this 'lack of confidence' you see floating around is an effect of seeing the government be totally ineffectual, and the House Republicans are all too happy to keep their hand firmly on the brake lever.
Apologies for the meandering state of this rant.
|
On October 02 2012 12:01 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 11:49 Gatored wrote:On October 02 2012 10:26 Quintum_ wrote:
I wonder how much gridlock we are going see this election cycle. From what i am getting i see things staying the same, the dems keeping the presidency and the senate with repu. keeping the house. With obama being reelected it should take some wind out of the party of no but i just dont know. From there attitude is seems like they will let the country burn(well more so then it already is) before they compromise. One could also argue that the current direction Obama is going is letting the country burn and the party of no is just trying to slow down the process. The moment when one party has complete control and power (no checks and balances) is the moment things could potentially start going downhill real fast. Checks and Balances are not there to stop political parties, If i remember my government classes correctly they did not imagine we would have a strictly two political party system like we do.
What we have now was the founders' greatest fear, as it happens.
|
On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing.
The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone?
This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens.
|
On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:
hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest
Now it's funny you mention that...
|
On October 02 2012 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:
hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest Now it's funny you mention that...
 I know. This country wouldn't know a socialist if one walked up to them and forcibly cared for their poor and elderly.
|
On October 02 2012 13:45 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:
hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest Now it's funny you mention that... I know. This country wouldn't know a socialist if one walked up to them and forcibly cared for their poor and elderly.
Having been in multiple classes that define the term, it's funny to see students struggle trying to figure out the definition without the professor telling them.
|
On October 02 2012 13:53 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 13:45 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:
hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest Now it's funny you mention that... I know. This country wouldn't know a socialist if one walked up to them and forcibly cared for their poor and elderly. Having been in multiple classes that define the term, it's funny to see students struggle trying to figure out the definition without the professor telling them.
I feel like the word "socialist" doesn't really have any particular meaning, independent of context.
|
On October 02 2012 14:03 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 13:53 stevarius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:45 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:
hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest Now it's funny you mention that... I know. This country wouldn't know a socialist if one walked up to them and forcibly cared for their poor and elderly. Having been in multiple classes that define the term, it's funny to see students struggle trying to figure out the definition without the professor telling them. I feel like the word "socialist" doesn't really have any particular meaning, independent of context.
Well, it does have a definition.
Socialist, n. Obama
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
