The Republican Thread

[Cknolls]

Illinois /Chicago:

 

increased sales tax on middle class and lower class

 

increase in state income tax on middle and lower class

 

constant increase in property tax on middle and lower class

 

... and there's a lot more tax increases they have been subjected to and the state/city is still totally busted financially.

 

 

Aw come on the Dems rock this state. What more could you ask for in a state legislature or governor. Pension crisis, what pension crisis? What union dick can I suck next? Get some balls and cut the f***ing pensions in this state.

[Cknolls]

and if the top 1% were paying their fair share in taxes, this wouldn't be the case.

[mr_genius]

Carl Rove suggests he may end up murdering Todd Akin

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/t..._n_1847318.html

 

"We should sink Todd Akin. If he's found mysteriously murdered, don't look for my whereabouts!"

Edited September 3, 2012 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

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

Oswego 308 is the largest employer in Kendall County.

[Quin]

WTF does this even mean?

 

Jenks, I disagree with you on a lot, but I respect the hell out of you man.

 

You actually respond to things directed at you.

[EvilMonkey]

WHen people talk about hanging bankers for the sub prime mortgage mess, they should remember this little tidbit first.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/with-lan...ican-americans/

President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Wow the daily caller still blaming poor blacks for the housing bubble, shocking.

 

The CRA and lawsuits against banks that violated it did not cause the housing and credit bubbles.

[southsider2k5]

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?

 

You do realize that the standard deduction alone means that poor people pay a smaller portion of their income to taxes than rich people right? The standard deduction doesn't scale up according to income. Hence it being "standard", and reflecting in the percentages by a ratio of over 12 to 1. If you go back to the link I posted earlier the 50th percentile of AGI is about 32k. in a married filing jointly family that is almost $12k of untaxable income, right off of the bat, or a third of their income. For someone making $25k, that is almost half of their income that isn't able to be taxed. For a family who makes a million dollars, they get that same 12k of income exempted, or something to the tune of 1%. Between that and things like earned income credit, child credits, etc, The lowest incomes actually profit from the income tax system. The numbers are there if you can get past your preconceived anecdotal falsehoods.

[southsider2k5]

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?

 

So refreshing to see it admitted that the Dems do want to tax poor people too.

[southsider2k5]

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

 

Wait until interest rates go back up and we are spending a trillion dollars a year on debt service.

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

It also makes the system harder to sustain if it is balanced on the backs of a minority of the country.

[Balta1701]

Wait until interest rates go back up and we are spending a trillion dollars a year on debt service.

How many years in a row will you make this prediction?

 

Just wait until the sun expands to a red giant stage, then we'll all be in trouble!

[Balta1701]

It also makes the system harder to sustain if it is balanced on the backs of a minority of the country.

Instead of this statement being aimed at "funding for various government programs", it works equally well/better when applied to the entire consumer economy. It is very, very hard to sustain if only a minority of the country has enough money to participate.

[StrangeSox]

Wait until interest rates go back up and we are spending a trillion dollars a year on debt service.

Any year now!

[StrangeSox]

It also makes the system harder to sustain if it is balanced on the backs of a minority of the country.

Minority of people, majority of wealth.

[Y2HH]

How many years in a row will you make this prediction?

 

Just wait until the sun expands to a red giant stage, then we'll all be in trouble!

 

It's not a very bold prediction if you'd like to actually stop being ignorant about it.

 

The CBO reported in 2009 we ALREADY pay $187 billion in interest alone. That was in 2009. It's well over 200billion a year just in interest payments now. While 1 trillion is a bit off...is not all that far off.

[Y2HH]

Any year now!

 

My previous post also applies to you.

[southsider2k5]

It's not a very bold prediction if you'd like to actually stop being ignorant about it.

 

The CBO reported in 2009 we ALREADY pay $187 billion in interest alone. That was in 2009. It's well over 200billion a year just in interest payments now. While 1 trillion is a bit off...is not all that far off.

 

And that is with record low interest rates.

[Balta1701]

It's not a very bold prediction if you'd like to actually stop being ignorant about it.

 

The CBO reported in 2009 we ALREADY pay $187 billion in interest alone. That was in 2009. It's well over 200billion a year just in interest payments now. While 1 trillion is a bit off...is not all that far off.

3 points.

 

1: Something like $80 billion of that interest was paid out to the federal reserve, which pays it back to the treasury.

 

2: The numbers sound big, but as a fraction of the economy, the interest on the national debt is hanging out close to recent historic lows.

(The increase at the end assumes that the government continues running substantial deficits and interest rates increase following the CBO baseline scenario projections. 2011 came in substantially below that projection and 2012 is likely there as well).

 

3. It's actually $400 billion in interest payments/year right now.

[Reddy]

you know, it's funny. i posted an example of WHY democrats support the things they do. I talked about what I think should be done, and instead of any of the GOP'ers present viable alternative options, they just flame away. Why? because they don't actually HAVE alternative options.

 

they just like to yell and scream about communist obama who spent the most of any president ever....oh.... wait... what? he increased spending LESS than any president in the last 60 years? DAMN YOU FACTS!!!

[Y2HH]

you know, it's funny. i posted an example of WHY democrats support the things they do. I talked about what I think should be done, and instead of any of the GOP'ers present viable alternative options, they just flame away. Why? because they don't actually HAVE alternative options.

 

they just like to yell and scream about communist obama who spent the most of any president ever....oh.... wait... what? he increased spending LESS than any president in the last 60 years? DAMN YOU FACTS!!!

 

This is a ... I'd call it a misrepresentation of reality. A bastardization, if you will.

 

This "increase" is based on adding the one time TARP spending by GW Bush. If you remove that one time TARP, it's just not true.

 

I wish people would stop repeating this, because it's a silly bending of reality. Yes, it's true Obama increased spending LESS than any other president IF -- and ONLY IF -- you INCLUDE the one time TARP payment in the LAST year of GW's reign.

 

If you remove that one time payment, like I said...the numbers fall apart.

 

TL;DR: Stop repeating that. It's a bending of the truth and reality based on adding a one time TARP payment to GW's spending, and only including what GW spent in his final year, not every year preceding it.

[Reddy]

WTF does this even mean?

all you b****ing about how "easy" it is to be a teacher should be asking yourself why it's impossible to find good teachers for inner-city school districts. If it were easy, they'd be filled no problem right?

 

it means that if you f*** with teachers' pensions or pay them less, fewer qualified, brilliant, incredible people will volunteer to fill the void. People aren't going to sign up to commit there lives to a profession that isn't respected enough to be paid what it deserves. I'm sure you've had fantastic teachers along the way that helped you get to where you are today (unless you're a family business baby, spoon-fed, silver platter type). If what all you GOP'ers are suggesting comes to pass, others wont have the opportunity you did to get great teachers who pushed you to do great things. That would be a travesty.

 

I agree that there is a monumental problem with parenting in this country, but good teachers actually CAN counterbalance that. They can be a positive influence in an otherwise negative world. But not if you don't create incentives for good people to become teachers in the first place.

[Y2HH]

3 points.

 

1: Something like $80 billion of that interest was paid out to the federal reserve, which pays it back to the treasury.

 

2: The numbers sound big, but as a fraction of the economy, the interest on the national debt is hanging out close to recent historic lows.

(The increase at the end assumes that the government continues running substantial deficits and interest rates increase following the CBO baseline scenario projections. 2011 came in substantially below that projection and 2012 is likely there as well).

 

3. It's actually $400 billion in interest payments/year right now.

 

1) But do they actually? And borrowing off of yourself, and charging yourself interest is just about the most bastardized idea of all time.

 

2) The numbers sound big because they are big. Interest is historically low, so of course the interest on the debt is historically low. But how long will interest payments remain low? Forever? Because that's what it's going to take.

 

3) That's insane...and it will only get worse.

 

[Reddy]

This is a ... I'd call it a misrepresentation of reality. A bastardization, if you will.

 

This "increase" is based on adding the one time TARP spending by GW Bush. If you remove that one time TARP, it's just not true.

 

I wish people would stop repeating this, because it's a silly bending of reality. Yes, it's true Obama increased spending LESS than any other president IF -- and ONLY IF -- you INCLUDE the one time TARP payment in the LAST year of GW's reign.

 

If you remove that one time payment, like I said...the numbers fall apart.

 

TL;DR: Stop repeating that. It's a bending of the truth and reality based on adding a one time TARP payment to GW's spending, and only including what GW spent in his final year, not every year preceding it.

 

why do you get to just remove expenditures to make someone look better? can we remove Obama's bailout then as well and compare the numbers?

[CanOfCorn]

Maybe we should give pro athletes tenure to balance things out.

 

They do...it's called veteran minimum salary.