Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 28 to 36 of 65

Thread: Its time for republican to concede a bit

  1. #28

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by bwh27 View Post
    The vast majority of Americans polled agree that taxes should be raised to help reduce the deficit, something like 70% which is very rare for such a divisive issue.
    Not to be a smart-butt, but isn't that because those 70% won't really be impacted?

    I vote yes, take their money.

  2. #29

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts View Post
    Not to be a smart-butt, but isn't that because those 70% won't really be impacted?

    I vote yes, take their money.
    By that logic then the vast majority of Americans wouldn't also agree for spending cuts that affect their bottom line as well. And no, the Bush tax cuts don't just affect the richest Americans, they cut taxes for a large chunk of the country with the majority of lost revenues coming from middle class Americans. Despite this fact, a majority of middle class Americans support having their taxes raised.

  3. #30

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by bwh27 View Post
    Who said that the Bush tax cuts are just a drop in the bucket? They are arguably the largest contributor to our current deficit.
    Again, we are currently borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend. Raising taxes on rich people by 3% is barely a blip in terms of the deficit. We'd have to just about double the tax rate on every single taxpayer for revenue to match spending.
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  4. #31

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by FloggingSully View Post
    Again, we are currently borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend. Raising taxes on rich people by 3% is barely a blip in terms of the deficit. We'd have to just about double the tax rate on every single taxpayer for revenue to match spending.
    You really need to stop posting on this if you're just going to assume huge falsehoods like that without even bothering to look into the facts. Is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office lying when they calculate a $3.3 trillion dollar cost of extending the Bush tax cuts and by concluding that those tax cuts were a large part of the current deficit? You also seem to be under the misconception that the Bush tax cuts were only for rich people when the reality is that middle class tax cuts accounted for the majority of their lost revenue, which anybody who looks into this for more than a few minutes can easily see. Spending will account for the majority of the debt reduction plan, but tax cuts have lost trillions in revenue and had a huge impact on the deficit - to claim differently is lazy and irresponsible.
    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc...-18-Update.pdf

    It's true that 37 cents of every dollar was borrowed in 2010, though that's largely due to the economic downturn. Spending cuts need to be the major part of cutting the deficit, but your facts on the tax rates required to significantly affect the deficit are way, way off base. In similar findings from an entirely different non-partisan body, the Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010 at $2.9 trillion, with an additional $606 billion in debt service costs (interest), for a combined total of $3.5 trillion. That's without even factoring in a rehaul of the tax code that currently allows for the richest Americans to pay a lower effective income tax rate than average Americans because of deductions, putting their money in stocks that barely get taxed and other loopholes. Over the last ten years, corporate income tax receipts fell 27 percent and declined 34 percent per capita, even though profits boomed, rising 60 percent. Eliminating defense cuts and revenue increases from consideration is not only a far less effective way to cut the deficit in a meaningful way, it also will exacerbate the already worsening income inequities in this country which hurts the economy as a whole.

  5. #32

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by bwh27 View Post
    Quinn, the idea that the richest 2% are a minority that will be unfairly targeted by ending the Bush tax cuts is delusional, not trying to make this personal, but the vast majority of the debt reduction would be targeting poor and middle class people through spending cuts.
    Please explain this quote. If you are saying that cutting medicare, medicaid and welfare hurts the poor then I disagree. It gets a local community to help out more and give them what they need instead of just a card they can sell for drugs if they so choose. I know I would (and do) chip in for my community and I think you would too. If you are saying something different, please correct me.

    Racial minorities and poor people
    I am sick of that argument. There are plenty of racial minorities doing just fine. Poor people have usually made bad decisions in their lives which led to their situation. Sometimes it really is just bad luck. That's why I agree with 12 months of unemployment or welfare. That is sufficient time to get yourself straight. If they aren't working by then, then go ahead and volunteer at shelters yourself. All it takes is a community to care.

    Congressmen cutting their salaries in half is fine, but their salaries are still one-thousandth that of a hedge fund manager for example who isn't smarter nor does he work harder yet they pay even less taxes than Congressmen (an average of 15% effective income tax). You're fighting a bizarre battle to go after the congressmen when there are far more significant disparities that cannot be chalked up to people who "work harder for their money".
    I am not saying who works harder for their money. Actually, I would think a roofer in Arizona works pretty damn hard for his money. But, isn't studying in grade school and high school working hard? That's how you can get a scholorship to pay for a college which you will also have to pull all-nighters to get the grades which lead to a good job. And even then, don't they have to start off as middle management and "stick out" to get promoted? And then to go from there they have to put in even more hours. So basically from grade school on up these people are putting in 80hrs a week or more. Why punish them? That is hard freakin work.

    And about the politicians, I know it won't make much of a difference in the deficit if we cut their spending in half. But if you combine that with no free health care and no pension (because there are more retired politicians than current) it is a little bigger. And it sets an example. Why should they tell you or Flop to pay more if they aren't going to? It is hypocritical. It is the definition of the word. Set the freakin example and then ask and I would respect it more. Right now, all it sounds to me is that they are trying to make sure they will still get theirs. Screw SS, as long as their pension and health care is okay. It seems so obvious. Not requiring them to make the change first just means they never will.

  6. #33

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    "Poor people have usually made bad decisions in their lives which led to their situation."


    45 million Americans are under the poverty line, the idea that most of them are there because they made bad decisions is extremely simplistic and dismissive of a complex and very serious problem. If cutting Medicare and other government programs will help poor people's lot then why is that other developed nations such as Germany with much larger welfare states have less of a poverty problem? I understand the programs have to be cut to get the debt under control, but the idea that local communities will just step in is completely unrealistic. Most of these poor people don't live in "local communities" that have people with means to chip in, they live in shitty neighborhoods with awful education systems. A kid that grows up with a single mother because his father left or is in prison who can't afford to send him to college and doesn't have any positive influences in his life cannot be chalked up to being a lazy asshole just sitting on the couch waiting for the next welfare check. Poverty is a complicated and critical problem that will not be aided by chipping away at the safety net. You talk like all poor people are drug addicts waiting for a welfare check, that's insane. So yes, let's take the necessary actions to reduce the deficit but the illusion that it's going to help poor people really just doesn't add up. Eliminating health benefits for 540 congressmen will make zero difference in the deficit, sorry. I understand what you mean by setting an example but most of them were making more money than their congressional salaries before becoming congressmen anyway. Elected officials, even though I get that you don't respect the job they're doing, have the right to a good health care package - they each represent close to a million people. If people are electing corrupt congressmen then that's their fault, cutting their health benefits so that if they get sick they'll receive worse care than a random rich guy isn't going to make a difference.

  7. #34

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by bwh27;[QUOTE
    41221345 million Americans are under the poverty line, the idea that most of them are there because they made bad decisions is extremely simplistic and dismissive of a complex and very serious problem.
    I disagree. Most of them did make poor decisions whether that was not studying in school, getting pregnant as a teen, doing or selling drugs, not showing up for work..ect. There are some who really did lose their jobs through no fault of their own. I am okay with helping them get back on their feet but not support them for life. That is another decision that they make. Do I get depressed and quit looking for jobs or pound the pavement?

    If cutting Medicare and other government programs will help poor people's lot then why is that other developed nations such as Germany with much larger welfare states have less of a poverty problem?
    Last I checked, all of Europe is about to go broke. More poverty is coming.

    I understand the programs have to be cut to get the debt under control, but the idea that local communities will just step in is completely unrealistic. Most of these poor people don't live in "local communities" that have people with means to chip in, they live in shitty neighborhoods with awful education systems.
    I really don't think it is unrealistic to have communities come together. As far as them living in shitty neighborhoods, I go back to poor choices. They can get together and clean up their own neighborhoods. They can call the cops when they see crimes. They can choose to demand better schools. But all of that starts in the home. If they choose not to do these things, then so be it. Others shouldn't be forced to be enablers for these choices.

    A kid that grows up with a single mother because his father left or is in prison who can't afford to send him to college and doesn't have any positive influences in his life cannot be chalked up to being a lazy asshole just sitting on the couch waiting for the next welfare check.
    That kid's parents made poor decisions. He can choose to over come it and better himself or walor around in self pity. Yes it's harder for a kid like that but if he chooses not to change his situation, that's on him. He also doesn't have to go to college. College is not for everyone, we complain that manufacturing is leaving the US, so why don't a kid like this get a job at a factory? If he does want to go to college, there are plenty of ways to get the money (grants, scholorships, loans).

    Poverty is a complicated and critical problem that will not be aided by chipping away at the safety net. You talk like all poor people are drug addicts waiting for a welfare check, that's insane.
    I don't mean to sound like that. I know sometimes people hit hard times and that is why I think we should help them. But a lifetime paycheck for doing nothing is not helping them. It should have a cutoff, IMO, but it should also come with job training or placement. That is where we are missing the boat on welfare. Make these people attend classes that teach them job skills and then help them find employment. I'll never understand why we don't do that.

    I understand what you mean by setting an example but most of them were making more money than their congressional salaries before becoming congressmen anyway.
    I know it won't make a big difference in the deficit, but it just pisses me off that they say "everyone needs to sacrifice" but they don't sacrifice anything. As far as them making more money before they became congressmen, that could be true but it wasn't tax payer money. Politicians just sicken me, but you're right. If people elect crooked politicians, it's their fault. That would be another example of poor decision making.

    Anyway, good debate.

  8. #35
    National Finalist leglace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Tampa Florida
    Posts
    992

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    I am all for cutting the tax breaks for plane owners. Afterall, it was a stimulus line item added by Pelosi in 2009. Why the republicans made an issue out of this is beyond me. I am also not opposed to cutting Bush tax breaks for the top 10%. However, they need to shore up the loop holes, and find a way to exclude small business owners. I can care less about hedge fund taxes going higher. We need to stay focused on what effects the average American family directly when we think about raising taxes or doing away with breaks. I am as conservative as it gets and I am getting irritated on the issues the right is making noise about.

    The left needs to give up on the debt ceiling and use that as a focus to make necessary cuts. The states do a better job since they do not allow for spending to exceed their budgets by law.The national government needs this as well. Stimuluses are not having the effect they think they do. We need to stay focused on cutting, and not making a fuss over tax breaks getting dropped. I do not consider dropping a tax break as raising taxes if there is an expiration on them. However, we do need to time their expiration wisely.

    I look at taxes much like managing a homeowner's association. If we want to maintain a luxurious waterpark, with waterslides and pools, we need to raise fees to afford them. An HOA never borrows to pay for maintanance fees. Only the federal government could dream that up. If too many homes are up for foreclosure, the HOA revenue goes down. You are then left with a choice either to raise the monthly dues or to get rid of maintanance items. This should go with lowering HOA overhead and recontracting lower rates to assure they get the most for their money. In this case, you may have to privatize the waterpark somehow.

    I wish the government was this cut and dry.
    Last edited by leglace; 07-07-2011 at 12:57 PM.
    I pictured you as that guy Gaylord in Showboat, passing up taxis to walk because he's broke and playing it off as if it's the doctor's advice. - Clmetal

  9. #36

    Default Re: Its time for republican to concede a bit

    Quote Originally Posted by leglace View Post
    I am all for cutting the tax breaks for plane owners.
    Here's a question about that idea. If rich people stop buying jets or planes, who does it really affect? They aren't the ones building them. They don't work in the factories that supply parts to them, they aren't the electricians hooking stuff up, they aren't the janitors in those factories that build them..... It has a huge affect on people's lives.

    For example, my friend works for Pioneer (you know, Pioneer stereos in cars). After the earthquake in Japan, he got laid off because the cars they were building them for weren't being built. People who supplied parts to his plant were shut down because of damage and it shut him down. Same thing will happen if people stop buying jets and planes. It affects a whole lot of people, the rich being the least of them.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •