The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

how do you think the country makes money?

 

maybe there's a reason you don't think teachers matter.............. someone didn't pay attention in school

 

Taking it from rich people?

[southsider2k5]

From the same link:

 

 

 

So, almost half of the personal taxes that go to the U.S. Government (since there is no federal sales tax nor federal property tax) are payroll tax. In essence, this is being borne by only those who make 150k and less... just sayin'.

 

Who also happen to use a disproportional share of it.

[Reddy]

Taking it from rich people?

let me slow this down for you.

 

- rich people pay more actual dollars in taxes than poor people, because they make more money. this doesn't mean we are unfairly taxing the rich. on the contrary, this is what MUST HAPPEN in a capitalist society. this should be obvious, but it seems to be tripping you up

 

- rich people actually pay a lower percentage of their income than do poor people.

 

- If rich and poor pay the same percentage, the rich will pay more actual dollars than the poor, but it will be FAIR because it's the same percentage of their income.

 

What of these do you disagree with?

[Jake]

Marty --

 

There is a budget deficit.

 

There are two ways to fix it...reduce spending or increase income. It makes no sense to only do one of those things when you can actually do both.

 

The three biggest, relatively equal sizes of that puzzle are defense spending, medicare, and social security. Defense is absolutely bloated and should be reduced, and perhaps significantly reduced. Social security is going to implode at some point, so I would like to see a plan put in place that gradually phases it out in favor of a government-overseen, private system. My suggestion would be that what you pay in is in fact what you get to take out. Of course, the government-overseen aspect would require that you pay a minimum into it and require that you don't take out from it until a legitimate retirement age.

 

I am against pinching pennies on things that don't make a dent in our government spending like Planned Parenthood, etc. It's just dodging the actual issue.

 

Real reform to institutions like Social Security will have to be bipartisan. Moreover, I think it will require a 2nd term President. It simply will not be popular.

 

Ideally, raising tax rates would also be bipartisan...but I won't hold my breath on that.

[Marty34]

Marty --

 

There is a budget deficit.

 

There are two ways to fix it...reduce spending or increase income. It makes no sense to only do one of those things when you can actually do both.

 

How about increasing the tax base instead of raising taxes?

[Zoogz]

Who also happen to use a disproportional share of it.

 

Everyone in the country happens to benefit from government programs, be they rich (court systems, highways/airports/seaports, policing, defense, etc.) or be they poor (unemployment insurance, SNAP benefits, children's health insurance). It's also not as if the U.S. Government has ever put in unbreakable firewalls between their sources of funding... after all, if Social Security had not been touched by so many Congresses in the past, we wouldn't be staring at low funding levels for the generation that paid the most in.

 

Addendum: it is absolutely true that Social Security and other low-income programs start with federal and state governments giving money to poorer people, but that money ends up getting spent on rent, goods, services (medical/legal/etc.) so the money is still getting circulated in the marketplace and does end up benefiting all people ultimately. It's awfully hard to put on a market if half or more of the people can't participate in the form of having no money.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Zoogz

[Reddy]

Everyone in the country happens to benefit from government programs, be they rich (court systems, highways/airports/seaports, policing, defense, etc.) or be they poor (unemployment insurance, SNAP benefits, children's health insurance). It's also not as if the U.S. Government has ever put in unbreakable firewalls between their sources of funding... after all, if Social Security had not been touched by so many Congresses in the past, we wouldn't be staring at low funding levels for the generation that paid the most in.

 

Addendum: it is absolutely true that Social Security and other low-income programs start with federal and state governments giving money to poorer people, but that money ends up getting spent on rent, goods, services (medical/legal/etc.) so the money is still getting circulated in the marketplace and does end up benefiting all people ultimately. It's awfully hard to put on a market if half or more of the people can't participate in the form of having no money.

 

i like you.

[Jake]

How about increasing the tax base instead of raising taxes?

 

Again....why not both?

[StrangeSox]

I recall several liberal pundits claiming that Issac happening during the convention was a 'sign from God' that he didn't like the Republicans. Then Issac moved on and left them alone, it became 'how can those Republicans party while Issac hits states next door', completely ignoring the actual President who was doing fundraisers all over the country. Then after the convention Romney goes to the effected areas, forcing Obama to change his schedule to do so as well. NOW, on the eve on the DNC, it seems that rain has tried to wash away the narcissist-in-chief's sand sculpture of himself, and they have to furiously rebuild one side of it. So, is this a sign that God hates the DNC?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside...ay-mount-obama/

 

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm, mocking Pat Robertson who always blames natural disasters on gays and devil-worshiping Haitians.

Edited September 3, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

If I were to make $1 million bucks, how much to you would be my 'fair share'?

 

$2M

[EvilMonkey]

From the same link:

 

 

 

So, almost half of the personal taxes that go to the U.S. Government (since there is no federal sales tax nor federal property tax) are payroll tax. In essence, this is being borne by only those who make 150k and less... just sayin'.

Are you sure you read that right? It says (3) The only tax analyzed here is the federal individual income tax, which is responsible for about 25 percent of the nation's taxes paid (at all levels of government). Federal income taxes are much more progressive than payroll taxes, which are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid (at all levels of government), and are more progressive than most state and local taxes (depending upon the economic assumption made about property taxes and corporate income taxes).

 

Says payroll taxes are 20% of taxes paid, not over half.

 

Also left out in your comments was :

It's worth pointing out that in the case of capital gains and dividends, income derived from these sources has already been taxed once by the corporate income tax, which is not included here, meaning the average effective tax rate numbers can be somewhat misleading.]

So the evil rich people already got taxed on the money, it just doesn't show in these numbers, giving a misleading figure.

[MexSoxFan#1]

 

Romney got a post convention 2 point "bump" (if you can call that a bump), lowest one since they've been keeping track of it since '84. ROFL

Edited September 3, 2012 by MexSoxFan#1

[Balta1701]

Romney got a post convention 2 point "bump" (if you can call that a bump), lowest one since they've been keeping track of it since '84. ROFL

Can you add a link to the particular poll? There's like 8 companies that do polling and I'm sure that statistic has to be one particular pollster.

[Marty34]

Again....why not both?

 

Speaking for myself I do not want to pay more taxes.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Marty34

[Reddy]

Speaking for myself I do not want to pay more taxes.

exactly. you're a typical selfish republican.

 

Democrats see there's a National Income Crisis, and try and find a way to solve it. They can't cut defense and war-spending or else they'll get beat in the next election, because the GOP will label them anti-american traitor Al-Qaedas. They don't cut education spending because that's idiotic. They don't cut arts spending because they recognize the value and the income and the JOBS that the arts generate. Their answer is to SPREAD THE RESPONSIBILITY to ALL AMERICANS by raising taxes, instead of targeting one group and making them suffer, as the GOP would do by cutting things like the aforementioned education and arts departments. The increase in taxes is NOMINAL for the majority of americans, but it should be SIGNIFICANT for the wealthiest. OR they need to try and close the loopholes that let corporations and millionaires get out of paying their fair share.

 

Here's the bottom line. I'm willing to help the government get out of this mess. Republicans aren't. Who's more patriotic now?

[EvilMonkey]

exactly. you're a typical selfish republican.

 

Democrats see there's a National Income Crisis, and try and find a way to solve it. They can't cut defense and war-spending or else they'll get beat in the next election, because the GOP will label them anti-american traitor Al-Qaedas. They don't cut education spending because that's idiotic. They don't cut arts spending because they recognize the value and the income and the JOBS that the arts generate. Their answer is to SPREAD THE RESPONSIBILITY to ALL AMERICANS by raising taxes, instead of targeting one group and making them suffer, as the GOP would do by cutting things like the aforementioned education and arts departments. The increase in taxes is NOMINAL for the majority of americans, but it should be SIGNIFICANT for the wealthiest. OR they need to try and close the loopholes that let corporations and millionaires get out of paying their fair share.

 

Here's the bottom line. I'm willing to help the government get out of this mess. Republicans aren't. Who's more patriotic now?

Then donate more of your money to the government. nobody is stopping you. You are selfish in your own way as you just don't want to be the only one to do so, so you want to make everyone else pay as well. Just pay more and stfu if you feel so strongly about it.

 

And fyi, the only thing Dems DO cut is education and police and fire. Just look at what they target first when they do't get their tax increases. Always the scare line "if we don't get this tax increase, we'll have to lay off 100 teachers/police/firefighters'. Never that they will have to lay off half their assistants or cut from any other office, they always go there first.

[Balta1701]

Then donate more of your money to the government. nobody is stopping you. You are selfish in your own way as you just don't want to be the only one to do so, so you want to make everyone else pay as well. Just pay more and stfu if you feel so strongly about it.

 

And fyi, the only thing Dems DO cut is education and police and fire. Just look at what they target first when they do't get their tax increases. Always the scare line "if we don't get this tax increase, we'll have to lay off 100 teachers/police/firefighters'. Never that they will have to lay off half their assistants or cut from any other office, they always go there first.

If you really look at where the government spending is...you've got defense, you've got Health Care, you've got pension plans at the state and local level in particular (usually covering...teachers, police, and firefighters), and within that you've covered a substantial majority of the government.

 

If you put defense cuts off the table, and you take Medicare off the table, where do cuts fall? Thanks to state level budget cuts in the recession, we're at about the same number of teachers this country had in 2004. We're not making this up. You cut the budget, you take defense off the table, that's what is left.

[mr_genius]

The options aren't totally limited, but health care and defense are real expensive. Anyways, here is a NY Times interactive thingy from a couple years ago that is fun. You can balance the budget! There's other spending cuts you could make that are left off that particular application.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11...ts-graphic.html

Edited September 3, 2012 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

The options aren't that limited, but health care and defense are real expensive. Anyways, here is a NY Times interactive thingy that is fun. You can balance the budget!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11...ts-graphic.html

Don't forget of course that most of police, fire, and education is paid for at the state and local level, so balancing the federal budget doesn't do much for keeping them employed. It does a little because the feds pay for a little, but that isn't where the real money is for those jobs.

 

We've seen state and local payrolls shrink by nearly 750,000 workers since their peak in 2008. This is what you get if you try to balance budgets and cut taxes. This is what we're supposed to want.

[Jenksismyhero]

how would you have become an attorney without teachers?

 

have you ever been one?

 

do you have any - ANY idea - what it is to be a teacher?

 

WTF does this even mean?

[mr_genius]

Don't forget of course that most of police, fire, and education is paid for at the state and local level, so balancing the federal budget doesn't do much for keeping them employed. It does a little because the feds pay for a little, but that isn't where the real money is for those jobs.

 

We've seen state and local payrolls shrink by nearly 750,000 workers since their peak in 2008. This is what you get if you try to balance budgets and cut taxes. This is what we're supposed to want.

 

state spending is completely out of control in some states. like Illinois. you really can't even raise taxes enough to fix it. too many state workers at salaries and benefits that are way too high; too much corruption and other wasteful spending as well.

Edited September 3, 2012 by mr_genius

[Jake]

state spending is completely out of control in some states. like Illinois. you really can't even raise taxes enough to fix it. too many state workers at salaries and benefits that are way too high; too much corruption and other wasteful spending as well.

 

My hometown had that kind of funny realization that they absolutely depended on gov't spending. While on one hand they all scream about tax cuts this and that...the state came to close our prison and they realized our little town would cave in on itself without all those state employees. The prison was saved, yet they hate that taxes went up. Hmm

[mr_genius]

My hometown had that kind of funny realization that they absolutely depended on gov't spending.

 

bad situation

[Balta1701]

bad situation

No worse than a town depending on any industry. Heck, probably a lot more reliable than some.

[mr_genius]

No worse than a town depending on any industry. Heck, probably a lot more reliable than some.

 

The industry probably can't just dig into the middle class workers pay check, so it might be more vulnerable. unless it's an Obama sponsored Wall Street Finance industry that donated hundreds of millions in bribes. They need those billion dollar bonus checks to save the town!

 

but i also suppose anything that has to do with the State of Illinois paying you isn't looking good either.