Well that is a good question but the easiest answer is simply the republican party is really more of a general name then a specific entity. In reality people vote based on belief system not fact system. There are roughly 6 belief parties in the united states. 1.) socially conservative, financially conservative. 2.) socially liberal, financially conservative. 3.) socially conservative, financially liberal. 4.) socially liberal, financially liberal. 5.) Anti government conservative. 6.) anti government liberal. Now those belief parties randomly assign themselves to the democrat republican parties depending on who they are running against. For example. If you have a socially conservative, financially conservative person running as a republican, the democrat could easily be a socially liberal/conservative, financially liberal/conservative. But wants the party position more then the other guy. To answer the question, because of beliefs. People believe that one candidate suits them better then another. Those beliefs set themselves into a two party system, because of money.
I understand that there are social diferances as well as financial differances. However, beings as to how it is money that makes the world go round, wouldn't it be in the best interest of 99% of America to vote anything BUT republican?
The Democratic/Republican parties are marketing tools for the Chamber of Commerce and its constituent members. Tell a selected market segment what it wants to hear, but do the bidding of those that determine what the market segment wants to hear.
The Democratic/Republican parties are marketing tools for the Chamber of Commerce and its constituent members. Tell a selected market segment what it wants to hear, but do the bidding of those that determine what the market segment wants to hear.
< flipping through old copy of das Kapital acquired at hippy store in '68 >
By golly you're right.. says so right here on page (pick a page, pick any page).
That pretty much covers it. Except of course for the stupidity of people who vote against their own self-interest.
You just described the Democrat party as well.
The question shouldn't be "how is the republican party still around" but why do we still cater to a 2 party system? The ideals of all Americans can not be put into just 2 party's who are absolutely no different from one another.
I'm pretty sure George Washington made a reference to the dangers of a 2 party system in his farewell address. We should probably listen to the man, he might have known a thing or two.
The Following User Says Thank You to persim For This Useful Post:
The question shouldn't be "how is the republican party still around" but why do we still cater to a 2 party system? The ideals of all Americans can not be put into just 2 party's who are absolutely no different from one another.
I'm pretty sure George Washington made a reference to the dangers of a 2 party system in his farewell address. We should probably listen to the man, he might have known a thing or two.
The question was posed directly towards the republican party because of their policies that favor the rich, while hurting the poor. Look at the current debt talks to see exactly what I am talking about. Now, look at the article, and see how outnumbered the super rich are. I can understande the top 1% of American's (in terms of wealth) favoring the Republican party. I just can't understand the bottom 99% even giving them the time of day.
Someone explain, how the Republican party is still alive...
Easy:
lots of corporate "donations"
corporate ownership of mass media
gerrymandering and election fraud
That pretty much covers it. Except of course for the stupidity of people who vote against their own self-interest.
I believe the last part of your statement probably says it best.All the gullible people that believe the Spokesmen of the rich such as Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck speak the gospel
The question was posed directly towards the republican party because of their policies that favor the rich, while hurting the poor. Look at the current debt talks to see exactly what I am talking about. Now, look at the article, and see how outnumbered the super rich are. I can understande the top 1% of American's (in terms of wealth) favoring the Republican party. I just can't understand the bottom 99% even giving them the time of day.
I can tell you I am certainly not in the 1% (in terms of wealth) you can only see supporting the Republican Party. But I don't like to be told what I should do with my money and the "spread the wealth around" philosophy favored by our current president and a good chunk of the Democratic Party makes me sick. Call me a terrible person but I don't give a crap about a drug addict on the streets of Seattle and certainly don't want my hard earned dollars going to programs for that person.
If I so choose to help people out anywhere, I will do so by giving donations to programs I see fit. Being forced to do so by way of taxes from our government is not something I support. A lot of candidates are forced to choose between the 2 party system we have in order to get elected even though they don't agree with all their ideals. So I have absolutely no problem electing a Republican or Democrat that favors my ideals.
We are all supposed to be treated equally in this country but why am I forced to pay a greater percentage of tax than a person making minimum wage? My reward for becoming a more productive member of society is to pay a greater percentage of my wages to the government. Seems like the worst incentive policy I have ever heard.
I can tell you I am certainly not in the 1% (in terms of wealth) you can only see supporting the Republican Party. But I don't like to be told what I should do with my money and the "spread the wealth around" philosophy favored by our current president and a good chunk of the Democratic Party makes me sick. Call me a terrible person but I don't give a crap about a drug addict on the streets of Seattle and certainly don't want my hard earned dollars going to programs for that person.
If I so choose to help people out anywhere, I will do so by giving donations to programs I see fit. Being forced to do so by way of taxes from our government is not something I support. A lot of candidates are forced to choose between the 2 party system we have in order to get elected even though they don't agree with all their ideals. So I have absolutely no problem electing a Republican or Democrat that favors my ideals.
We are all supposed to be treated equally in this country but why am I forced to pay a greater percentage of tax than a person making minimum wage? My reward for becoming a more productive member of society is to pay a greater percentage of my wages to the government. Seems like the worst incentive policy I have ever heard.
The top 1% receive more of your money than the drug addict. You pay a FAR higher percentage than the 1%. Read the article.
The top 1% receive more of your money than the drug addict. You pay a FAR higher percentage than the 1%. Read the article.
I did read it and many many others that have claimed this statistic. It's impossible to get around paying a payroll tax(unless you pull the classic CEO move and take a $1 salary with all those excellent stock options). Depending on your income this will range anywhere from 0-45%.
Whether you then manipulate the tax code with an obscene amount of deductions or credits is a totally different story all together. This could all be remedied by eliminating the IRS and having a simple code that taxes everyone at the same rate with no chance of deductions or credits.
Would you be happy then when everyone would be treated equally and paying the same percentage of their income?
"And the rate of increase is even higher for the very richest of the rich: the top 400 income earners in the United States. The average income of the top 400 doubled during the first seven years of the Bush Administration. So by 2007, the top 400 averaged $344.8 million per person, up 31% from an average of $263.3 million just one year earlier.How are these huge gains possible for the top 400? It's due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, which were down to a mere 15% in 2007 thanks to the tax cuts proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress in 2003. Since almost 75% of the income for the top 400 comes from capital gains and dividends, it's not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny percent of Americans mattered greatly for the high-earning few.Overall, the effective tax rate on high incomes fell by 6% in the Bush era, so the top 400 had a tax rate of 20% or less in 2007, far lower than the marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners (over $372,650) supposedly pay."
Considering 75% of their income is not "payroll", it isn't that hard to get around.
Last edited by nlsme; July 27th, 2011 at 05:33 PM.
Considering 75% of their income is not "payroll", it isn't that hard to get around.
Overall, the effective tax rate on high incomes fell by 6% in the Bush era, so the top 400 had a tax rate of 20% or less in 2007, far lower than the marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners (over $372,650) supposedly pay.
Your point is what? Effective tax rate is just a net of all your tax rates. Everyone in this country has the opportunity to invest and have income from those investments, whether its 75% of your total income or 25% of your total income. That income is then taxed at a specific rate that is different from a payroll tax.
Just because 75% of their income happens to come from investments doesn't mean they are paying any less percentage (yes capital gains were lowered so that part of their income was paying less tax but so were everyone elses). They are paying exactly the rate that anyone who invested would pay on that income.
You can not compare effective tax rate to marginal tax rate as this article and many articles like it try to do. A person making 75k who had 75% of his income from investments and 25% from salary would pay a smaller effective tax rate than a person making 75k from salary only. But since they are both deemed middle class no one would argue that this person should pay his "fair share". Why are wealthy people treated differently just because they are wealthy?
Your point is what? Effective tax rate is just a net of all your tax rates. Everyone in this country has the opportunity to invest and have income from those investments, whether its 75% of your total income or 25% of your total income. That income is then taxed at a specific rate that is different from a payroll tax.
Just because 75% of their income happens to come from investments doesn't mean they are paying any less percentage (yes capital gains were lowered so that part of their income was paying less tax but so were everyone elses). They are paying exactly the rate that anyone who invested would pay on that income.
You can not compare effective tax rate to marginal tax rate as this article and many articles like it try to do. A person making 75k who had 75% of his income from investments and 25% from salary would pay a smaller effective tax rate than a person making 75k from salary only. But since they are both deemed middle class no one would argue that this person should pay his "fair share". Why are wealthy people treated differently just because they are wealthy?
Why are wealthy people treated differantly just because they are wealthy? Maybe a republican can answer this, as they are the ones that pass tax laws that overwelmingly favor them. Why should someones investments be taxed at half the rate as someones labor? Let me make a little hypothetical.
Two people, one rich, the other poor. The rich man employs the poor guys at a rate of $15/hr. The rich guy collects $30/hr for the work the poor guy does. After wages, the rich guy makes $15/hr off of the work the poor guy actually performs. Now, Uncle sam tells the poor guy he now owes $4/hr from his wages. He then tells the rich guy that he only owes $2/hr off the profit he makes from the poor mans labor. How is that fair?
To a lesser extent, yes. Both Democrats and Republicans serve their corporate masters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by persim
We are all supposed to be treated equally in this country but why am I forced to pay a greater percentage of tax than a person making minimum wage? My reward for becoming a more productive member of society is to pay a greater percentage of my wages to the government. Seems like the worst incentive policy I have ever heard.
Progressive tax means the rate rises for each tax bracket. Taxes on the first 8,500 is 10%, from 8,500 to 34,500 is 15%, from 34,500 to 83,600 is 25%, etc.
So the guy on minimum wage is paying the exact same tax as you are on that level of income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by persim
It's impossible to get around paying a payroll tax
Payroll tax is capped at $106,800 of income. Someone making that amount pays 6.2% (and their employer pays another 6.2%). Someone making double that amount ($213,600) only pays 3.1% payroll tax.
The more money you make (over $106k) the lower the percentage you pay. This is but one of many tax benefits the wealthy get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by persim
Everyone in this country has the opportunity to invest and have income from those investments, whether its 75% of your total income or 25% of your total income.
If they have money they do. The poor and middle classes don't have money to invest, so they do not have the opportunity to receive the tax benefits that investors get. This is a clear case of tax policy that rewards the rich.
Why are wealthy people treated differantly just because they are wealthy? Maybe a republican can answer this, as they are the ones that pass tax laws that overwelmingly favor them. Why should someones investments be taxed at half the rate as someones labor?
I am sure most Democrats in congress take full advantage of these tax laws, I have never seen any one of them ask to give the money back because they thought it was unfair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nlsme
Two people, one rich, the other poor. The rich man employs the poor guys at a rate of $15/hr. The rich guy collects $30/hr for the work the poor guy does. After wages, the rich guy makes $15/hr off of the work the poor guy actually performs. Now, Uncle sam tells the poor guy he now owes $4/hr from his wages. He then tells the rich guy that he only owes $2/hr off the profit he makes from the poor mans labor. How is that fair?
This scenario is completely wrong. The rich guy is not an investor, he is an employer. He pays the employer part of the workers payroll taxes and pays for taxes on his earned income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah way
Progressive tax means the rate rises for each tax bracket. Taxes on the first 8,500 is 10%, from 8,500 to 34,500 is 15%, from 34,500 to 83,600 is 25%, etc.
So the guy on minimum wage is paying the exact same tax as you are on that level of income.
I never said wealthy people are paying more on the lower income.
That is why I said you can not compare effective to marginal tax. Marginal=Progressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah way
Payroll tax is capped at $106,800 of income. Someone making that amount pays 6.2% (and their employer pays another 6.2%). Someone making double that amount ($213,600) only pays 3.1% payroll tax.
The more money you make (over $106k) the lower the percentage you pay. This is but one of many tax benefits the wealthy get.
Payroll taxes maybe capped at 106k but income tax sure isn't. This small benefit does not make up for the outrageous income taxes the wealthy pay, anywhere from 35%-50% depending on who controls the government.
As I said in a prior post I am in favor of a simplified tax system where everybody would be charged 18-22% on all income no matter what their type of income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah way
If they have money they do. The poor and middle classes don't have money to invest, so they do not have the opportunity to receive the tax benefits that investors get. This is a clear case of tax policy that rewards the rich.
This is completely untrue, I have been investing since I was 16 with a minimum wage job, when I was paying my way through college and up until today. Everybody has the opportunity to invest, whether they choose to or not is a completely different matter.
This scenario is completely wrong. The rich guy is not an investor, he is an employer. He pays the employer part of the workers payroll taxes and pays for taxes on his earned income.
This is completely untrue, I have been investing since I was 16 with a minimum wage job, when I was paying my way through college and up until today. Everybody has the opportunity to invest, whether they choose to or not is a completely different matter.
Semantics. A rich guy invests in a company. Said company has an employee that makes $15/hr. The return on the rich guys investment is $15 for every hour the poor guy works. The poor guy pays $2.5/hr in taxes, the "investor" pays $1.25 for every $15 return on his investment. How is this fair?
How is it completely untrue that the rich have far more to invest with? The top 20% of Americans hold 80% of the nations wealth. The top .6% hold over 50%. The bottom 80% only hold 20% of the nations wealth. It is pretty clear that the capital gains tax benefits the wealthy in an extremely lopsided manner. Considering that is where most of their money comes from, investment (not payroll), why even discuss margianal tax rates on the rich at all. That is not what their tax burden comes from, by and large.
Semantics. A rich guy invests in a company. Said company has an employee that makes $15/hr. The return on the rich guys investment is $15 for every hour the poor guy works. The poor guy pays $2.5/hr in taxes, the "investor" pays $1.25 for every $15 return on his investment. How is this fair?
The situation is completely different. At some point in time said rich guy had income that was taxed at the proper income/payroll rate like everyone else. He then uses this money that has already been taxed to invest in a company. He makes money on this investment and pays the proper tax rate for investment income.
These our the rules of our current system. Whether it is fair or not is a different debate but every person in America has the ability to do what this rich guy has done with his money. As I stated above, I favor a flat tax on all income of 18-22% for everyone with no loopholes, deductions, credits nor exceptions. This is completely fair to me because everyone is treated equally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nlsme
How is it completely untrue that the rich have far more to invest with? The top 20% of Americans hold 80% of the nations wealth. The top .6% hold over 50%. The bottom 80% only hold 20% of the nations wealth. It is pretty clear that the capital gains tax benefits the wealthy in an extremely lopsided manner. Considering that is where most of their money comes from, investment (not payroll), why even discuss margianal tax rates on the rich at all. That is not what their tax burden comes from, by and large.
This is our current tax code. I didn't write it and I don't agree with it. But you and many others appear to upset with wealthy people just because they are wealthy. They follow the same rules as everyone else regarding marginal income tax and investment income tax. Money doesn't appear out of thin air. At some point in time money was made and was taxed at the marginal rate. They then invested that money and pay taxes on that as well.
Do capital gains tax decreases help people with money invested? Sure they do but they help everyone who has investments. Myself and my entire family(all middle class by the way)received tax decreases when the capital gains tax was lowered. As stated before everyone has the opportunity to invest. You appear to be upset because these people have invested their money wisely.
The situation is completely different. At some point in time said rich guy had income that was taxed at the proper income/payroll rate like everyone else. He then uses this money that has already been taxed to invest in a company. He makes money on this investment and pays the proper tax rate for investment income.
These our the rules of our current system. Whether it is fair or not is a different debate but every person in America has the ability to do what this rich guy has done with his money. As I stated above, I favor a flat tax on all income of 18-22% for everyone with no loopholes, deductions, credits nor exceptions. This is completely fair to me because everyone is treated equally.
This is our current tax code. I didn't write it and I don't agree with it. But you and many others appear to upset with wealthy people just because they are wealthy. They follow the same rules as everyone else regarding marginal income tax and investment income tax. Money doesn't appear out of thin air. At some point in time money was made and was taxed at the marginal rate. They then invested that money and pay taxes on that as well.
Do capital gains tax decreases help people with money invested? Sure they do but they help everyone who has investments. Myself and my entire family(all middle class by the way)received tax decreases when the capital gains tax was lowered. As stated before everyone has the opportunity to invest. You appear to be upset because these people have invested their money wisely.
I get it, the top 400 ALL had jobs at Mcdonalds.... Not one of them did. You say you would be willing to have a flat tax of 18-22%, yet, say that I dislike the rich? BTW, the effective tax rate (what they actually pay) is below 18%. I don't hate the rich, I hate that they pay to have tax laws enacted that direclty benefit them. Yes, anyboidy can invest. Not everyone can invest where 75% of their income comes from returns on those investments. In fact, MOST Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and cannot invest. Most Americans could not come up with $2,000 to cover an unexpected emergency. I don't hate the rich, I hate that I pay a FAR HIGHER percentage of MY earnings in taxes than they do.
This scenario is completely wrong. The rich guy is not an investor, he is an employer. He pays the employer part of the workers payroll taxes and pays for taxes on his earned income.
That a lot of jobs alright. Too bad none of them are in the US. Too bad that GE pays no taxes, and that foreign investment gets a tax credit (otherwise known as a subsidy).
But I don't like to be told what I should do with my money and the "spread the wealth around" philosophy favored by our current president and a good chunk of the Democratic Party makes me sick.
Well said my friend.
I completely agree with you.
I live in one the most socialist countries and it is on the borderline of becoming communist. There are a lot of problems in my country because of socialism and cultural issues.
You see, I have lived my whole life in a socialist / semi - communist country and our country is a real serious screw up and pathetic hell holl.
Socialism doesn't work and neither does communism. It has been proven during the Cold War and in other places too.
I am completely aware of the dangers of a socialist and communist system becuase I have lived my whole life in a socialist system and believe socialism is flat out dangerous.
And yes I agree with you, you shouldn't spread the wealth around, or have welfare it is dangerous.
That is basically like communism.
It is against human rights to have welfare, you are correct. I tried to explain this to other people but they did not understand me sadly.
And I also agree with you that you should not have to help someone out of their problems that you did not creat in the 1st place. It is forcing you to pay for someone elses problems. We did not creat their problems in life but some how we must pay for for their problems with welfare?
It is very wrong to be forced to do that.
Anywayz never mind that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by persim
We are all supposed to be treated equally in this country but why am I forced to pay a greater percentage of tax than a person making minimum wage? My reward for becoming a more productive member of society is to pay a greater percentage of my wages to the government. Seems like the worst incentive policy I have ever heard.
Wow that is so true!
I agree with you 120%.
You should get rewarded for your hard work and not the other way round, which is what you have said there.
You are 120% correct again.
People should get rewarded for doing well in life and not the other way round.
You are right.
Seriously well said.
P.S. I might sound like a heartless person but you have to look after yourself and not bear the burden of every body else's problems / issues in life because that is not fair to take on others problems. You have to look after your self sad but true.
Sadly they have not changed culturally and ethically... so we are doomed.
Anywayz I don't want to turn this thread into another one of my disasters.
I have made too many disiaters on these forums.
I just used my country as an example because it is such a failure and is borderline communist / dictatorship and wanted to demonstrate the dangers of socialism thats all so thats why I brought up my contry, just to demonstrate the dangers of socialism.
Sadly they have not changed culturally and ethically... so we are doomed.
Anywayz I don't want to turn this thread into another one of my disasters.
I have made too many disiaters on these forums.
I just used my country as an example because it is such a failure and is borderline communist / dictatorship and wanted to demonstrate the dangers of socialism thats all so thats why I brought up my contry, just to demonstrate the dangers of socialism.
Thanx Frisco
The thing is, here the money from socialism overwelmingly flows to the rich, not the poor. That is the point of the thread.
The thing is, here the money from socialism overwelmingly flows to the rich, not the poor. That is the point of the thread.
It appears to be the same way with capitalism, but with a chance for the poor to become the rich.. that's a difference, but one that is being washed away by creeping Republican manipulation of what used to be a free system.
South Africa is fairly far from socialism, the post-apartheid welfare programs were targeted, and made a lot of blacks wealthy, but poverty amongst blacks has increased. /OT
I am surprised by the strength of the GOP in the US, but perhaps its because the US has never had a major famine or major foreign invasion or whatever that sticks in memory.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
Someone explain, how the Republican party is still alive...
Easy:
lots of corporate "donations"
corporate ownership of mass media
gerrymandering and election fraud
That pretty much covers it. Except of course for the stupidity of people who vote against their own self-interest.
The financial backers of the Republicans want a return to the Gilded Age, a large, cheap supply of labor, thus their opposition to women's reproductive health.
They also require no government interference in the formation of monopolies and government leaders are beholden to the extremely wealthy. Large propaganda efforts must be made to deceive the public, those not deceived need to be disenfranchised and the vote counting process needs to be controlled.
Government has to be limited and subservient to the few wealthy plutocrats that cheated and swindled to obtain great wealth, such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Morgan, who are paragons of virtue compared to Koch, Adelson and VanderSloot.
Laissez faire ideology leads to economic collapse, which can lead to a rise of a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Tse-Tung.
"It is hard to ignore the contributions of these industrial giants to the development of the American economy. But some historians suggest that focusing on these sorts of individuals still fails to capture the full character of the emerging industrial economy. Like the statistical portrait, or the reduction of the economy to a list of abstract ingredients, this focus on just a handful of powerful individuals fails to capture the character of the economy for the vast majority of America's 75 million people. In particular, these approaches fail to reveal the impact of this particular form of economic growth on those at the bottom of the economic ladder. The same economy that gave Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan the opportunity to amass the largest fortunes in the history of the world also required unskilled industrial laborers to work an average of 60 hours per week for 10 cents an hour. (Accounting for inflation, 10 cents in 1880 was worth about as much as $2 today.)"
"Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010."
The Following User Says Thank You to OutofDate1980 For This Useful Post:
"Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010."
you do realize that in order for anything the house voted on to take effect...... the senate (majority Dems) also has to vote on the same thing...... and then the President has to approve it
its kind of how the government works
the house cant just take a vote and dictate what gets spent where on their own
as far as blaming the victims......... HEH?
the attack was only on Dems or something?...... oh wait you forgot 4 people died...... they were the victims.... not the president
Ignorance feeds on ignorance. Look at their constituencies: the greed (and I will not include all the rich), the under-educated, the prejudicial (includes the close-minded), followers of most types who look for leadership rather than intellectualizing problems (there's that nasty word "intellectual" which means a person who has an ability to think), the misinformed (a huge number who are not curious to independently find the answer), single issue voters (who usually fit into other categories as well), and of course NASCAR followers (pardon to the few who actually do have the ability to think through the long term ramifications of their vote, and that also applies to most other categories).
Knowledge of history and work experience. I have some under-educated relatives who don't know what the word means when someone calls their positions reactionary. I ask how well they know US and world history because their positions would return us to life as it was know before FDR and under the administrations of earlier not-so-bright Republicans, most notable, Hoover.
If they agree, which few of them do, that living under conditions as they were before the middle class started its growth under FDR, that voting for Romney, and worse yet Ryan, would assure the appointment of Supreme Court justices that would assure our conversion to a Third World country in a few decades.
I am sure I have missed a few constituency categories and would like to hear which ones I have overlooked and which you would include. I also realize we have some of the under-educated on our side as well, but those on the reactionary side are so verbose about their lack of knowledge, compassion, and understanding.
I have written about five or ten more paragraphs but this must go into a cloud and never lets me finish. When I have time I will get back to this
Last edited by Intruderboy; October 15th, 2012 at 01:44 AM.
Reason: to clarify some thoughts
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intruderboy
Ignorance feeds on ignorance. Look at their constituencies: the greed (and I will not include all the rich), the under-educated, the prejudicial (includes the close-minded), followers of most types who look for leadership rather than intellectualizing problems (there's that nasty word "intellectual" which means a person who has an ability to think), the misinformed (a huge number who are not curious to independently find the answer), single issue voters (who usually fit into other categories as well), and of course NASCAR followers (pardon to the few who actually do have the ability to think through the long term ramifications of their vote, and that also applies to most other categories).
Knowledge of history and work experience. I have some under-educated relatives who don't know what the word means when someone calls their positions reactionary. I ask how well they know US and world history because their positions would return us to life as it was know before FDR and under the administrations of earlier not-so-bright Republicans, most notable, Hoover.
If they agree, which few of them do, that living under conditions as they were before the middle class started its growth under FDR, that voting for Romney, and worse yet Ryan, would assure the appointment of Supreme Court justices that would assure our conversion to a Third World country in a few decades.
I am sure I have missed a few constituency categories and would like to hear which ones I have overlooked and which you would include. I also realize we have some of the under-educated on our side as well, but those on the reactionary side are so verbose about their lack of knowledge, compassion, and understanding.
I have written about five or ten more paragraphs but this must go into a cloud and never lets me finish. When I have time I will get back to this
The rhetoric in this post amuses me greatly. It amuses me because I've seen the exact same thing just from the opposite perspective where the exact same arguments were made just for Romney instead of Obama. The end argument was that Obama would turn us into a 3rd world country. In essence, take your entire post and substitute Obama for Romney and it's the same thing. Good to know the two parties are so different.
I also think Sprint won't try to buy T-Mobile in the next four years, unless Mitt Romney is elected. Yes, there are a lot of Wall Street analysts slavering over the potential of dropping from four to three nationwide carriers, but Obama's FCC and DOJ, in rejecting the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, made it clear they want four nationwide carriers. No need to open that can of worms. A Romney FCC and DOJ would be much friendlier to consolidation.
I also think Sprint won't try to buy T-Mobile in the next four years, unless Mitt Romney is elected. Yes, there are a lot of Wall Street analysts slavering over the potential of dropping from four to three nationwide carriers, but Obama's FCC and DOJ, in rejecting the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, made it clear they want four nationwide carriers. No need to open that can of worms. A Romney FCC and DOJ would be much friendlier to consolidation.
Not even quite sure it will ever happen. T-Mobile just merged with Metro and Sprint is getting bought by a Japanese firm.
Ahhh smell the capitalism, if you're not happy with the status quo then re-elect nobody, stop creating career politicans, drop the income tax and implement a federal sales tax, no loop holes, if you buy things you pay taxes reguardless of your status in life or where your money came from.
__________________
If I can help, you've got bigger problems
Ahhh smell the capitalism, if you're not happy with the status quo then re-elect nobody, stop creating career politicans, drop the income tax and implement a federal sales tax, no loop holes, if you buy things you pay taxes reguardless of your status in life or where your money came from.
That would be a huge tax increase for lower income people, who have to spend most of the money they make.
That would be a huge tax increase for lower income people, who have to spend most of the money they make.
that would be true if you ignore the fact that every proposal ever written for a national sales tax included welfare for the "poor"...... they can still afford underwear and toilet paper blah blah blah........ they wont, however, be able to afford that 60" flat panel they been saving up their food stamps to buy
but nice attempt at the scare tactics... par for the course with those that believe taxes are something that should be paid by others......... try paying some sometime and join the productive in society instead of advocating for laziness
Last edited by copestag; October 28th, 2012 at 03:19 AM.
Device(s): Galaxy Note II (stock.... for now)
Acer Iconia A100 (stolen by a 2 year old:p)
Carrier: Death Star
Thanks: 208
Thanked 139 Times in 116 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag
they can still afford underwear and toilet paper blah blah blah........ they wont, however, be able to afford that 60" flat panel they been saving up their food stamps to buy
You mean ive been spending all my food stamps on food all this time for when i could have bought tvs! ?!? Why was i not made aware of this sooner?
Ahhh smell the capitalism, if you're not happy with the status quo then re-elect nobody, stop creating career politicans, drop the income tax and implement a federal sales tax, no loop holes, if you buy things you pay taxes reguardless of your status in life or where your money came from.
You can't just completely rely on sales tax (or VAT as we call it). The highest rate in Europe is 27% (minimum allowed is 15%), and I don't think it should be higher than that, as you then have to provide more transfers to the working and lower middle classes. Perhaps if the federal government was to set minimum income tax rates for states and obliged them to provide services (healthcare, third level education etc), the federal government could largely reduce income taxation, if they also brought in a 20-30% sales tax and removed the right for states and local government to levy such taxes.
that would be true if you ignore the fact that every proposal ever written for a national sales tax included welfare for the "poor"...... they can still afford underwear and toilet paper blah blah blah........ they wont, however, be able to afford that 60" flat panel they been saving up their food stamps to buy
but nice attempt at the scare tactics... par for the course with those that believe taxes are something that should be paid by others......... try paying some sometime and join the productive in society instead of advocating for laziness
Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but I actually work full time and pay my fair share of taxes. Personal attacks are unnecessary and lazy.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmash
That would be a huge tax increase for lower income people, who have to spend most of the money they make.
Depends. I've seen different proposals address this. Some propose no taxes at all on necessities like food. Others propose taxes on some foods that are deemed non-necessary. So if you buy hamburger, it's tax free, but if you buy caviar or lobster or prime rib you pay taxes. Others have simply done the math on how much it takes to live at the poverty level. They propose issuing a check to everyone every year for the amount you would pay in taxes if you live at the poverty level. This way the poor are paying no taxes at all. Anyone who lives above the poverty level pays taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja
You can't just completely rely on sales tax (or VAT as we call it). The highest rate in Europe is 27% (minimum allowed is 15%), and I don't think it should be higher than that, as you then have to provide more transfers to the working and lower middle classes. Perhaps if the federal government was to set minimum income tax rates for states and obliged them to provide services (healthcare, third level education etc), the federal government could largely reduce income taxation, if they also brought in a 20-30% sales tax and removed the right for states and local government to levy such taxes.
Or perhaps the state could provide less services and people could fix their own mess themselves. I still remain completely unconvinced that wealth transfers are needed at all. Personally I don't want any money that I didn't earn myself, but that's just me. Maybe I'm weird that way. A handout mentality is what is wrong with some people in this country.
12Likes
Someone explain, how the Republican party is still alive...
