| keremoner |
| Now that the race seems to be set, who is your candidate? |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by LionSpeed
McCain.
+1 |
|
|
| keremoner |
| I wonder if 1/4 of Hillary supporters will really vote for McCain as they have been saying at exit polls. This is a very interesting election year. I tend to think McCain will win but Dems will bolster their majority in both houses. 4 more years of gridlock, hopefully!! |
|
|
| drjay |
quote:
Originally posted by mesalum
Obama
+ 1 |
|
|
| gmc74 |
Exit polls don't mean anything, people say what they should do not what they will do.
There were a lot of polls where people said they would vote for Obama, then didn't. So who knows.
If Obama wasn't a socialist, I would vote for him... |
|
|
| highmath |
quote:
Originally posted by mesalum
Obama
+2, Don't care too much on politics; i deal with that too much everyday here in the military. |
|
|
| hondacuraworld |
These aren't my words, but I do believe there's a lot of truth here......decide for yourself if you agree.
This was from a post written by a friend of mine on another board who lives in Michigan:
I grew up in the cornfields of Illinois, and it seemed to me that the ideals of communism made a lot of sense when they taught it in public school. My dad was furious, and I didn't understand why. But I thought that perhaps I was a communist.
I watched Nixon come to town to dedicate a library, and the first hippies I had ever seen came to town to demonstrate. They yelled and waved signs and tried to distrupt, and the police kicked the crap out of them in public and my dad just gritted his teeth and refused to answer me when I tried to make sense of what was going on.
A year or so later, while on my newspaper route, a hippy working in the local McGovern campaign office tried to buy a newspaper from me while I was delivering papers. I told him I only had enough papers to cover my route, so I could not sell him one. He took a paper from me by force and then kicked the hell out of me when I tried to stop him. I was 12, he was in his twenties. I remember his hippie girlfriends telling him he was being uncool while he kicked me in the head as I lay in a fetal position. But when he was done, one of the hippy girls told me "He's trying to make the world a better place, but sometimes he loses his temper." My dad had him arrested, and the police let my dad take the kid into the interrogation room while they waited outside. There was no trial.
As I grew up, I thought with my heart, and I considered myself a liberal in all things. I also discovered that pretty girls did not date conservatives, so all the more reason to be liberal. I learned about showing my emotions and getting in touch with my feminine side, and it all seemed like things were going pretty well.
I graduated High School and I asked my dad how I was going to get to college and he told me to figure it out, because he had no money to send me, and my grades were not good enough for a scholarship. So I joined the Marines, hoping to get my college paid for. Little did I know that I joined in between funding for the GI Bill - vets before and after me got college money, but those of us who served between 1979 and 1984 got nothing. I watched how our service suffered under the benign neglect of President Carter, and how despised we were when we dared show our faces in public in uniform. No one remembers it now, but in the late 1970's and early 80's, we were still 'baby killers' to the general public, and often cursed out or spat upon.
Yeah, it happened. The military hadn't had a pay raise in over 20 years, and then one year, Congress adjourned without voting on a pay bill for the military - we all went six weeks without a paycheck. Some of the married service people were reduced to bagging groceries at night to try to pay for food for their families. Some got evicted, some lost their cars, some lost their families, and the public sentiment was that military people got just what they deserved.
It was then that I began to see liberalism as incorrect, essentially wrong, misguided, and at times, evil. Without a historical context, I can understand how modern-day liberals are perplexed when conservatives see liberals as essentially USA-haters. But in the context of my own life, I've lived through it. Yeah, I began to see liberals as liberty-haters, freedom-haters, anti-American. I joined the Republican party and voted for Reagan. I nodded in grim satisfaction when he was elected and the Iran hostages were freed within minutes. There was no doubt, we'd have gone into Iran. I was on active duty, and I was ready - we all were. We wanted to go. The Iranians knew it, I thought.
However, some liberal principles I found I could not let go of. I believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment - but also in the 1st. And that means that I have to grit my teeth and put up with it when some idiot burns the US flag. I have to accept that neo-Nazis have a right to march down the main street of Skokie, Illinois. I have to deal with the KKK having a rally on the courthouse steps. Because I want *my* rights protected too. I believe that the police should have the powere to do their jobs, but not the power to infringe on civil liberties - even if that means that sometimes their hands are tied. I believe that a person is entitled to a presumption of innocence and the best legal representation they can muster, even when dirtbags walk free sometimes. But I also believe that people should obey the law, and be prepared to suffer the consequences if they do not. And I believe that Free Enterprise is 'good' and that there is no 'yeah but' appeal to anti-greed sentiment.
I don't like neo-Nazis, and I don't like insurance companies making 'obscene' profits, but both are legal, and I accept that. |
|
|
| hondacuraworld |
I was not 'right' and I was not 'left'. Then and now, I quickly find myself ostracized by both conservatives and liberals when I agree with one of their stances and disagree with the others. If I disagree with a liberal, they assume I'm a Republican. If I disagree with a conservative, they assume I'm a Democrat. I'm neither. The closest I ever found to a party that I could agree with was the Libertarian party, and I find myself in disagreement with some of the things they believe, too. I do think drugs should be outlawed, not free, and I don't believe we can follow a policy of isolationism, nor can we withdraw from the world. Basically, I don't get along with anyone, but I presume you'll all come around to my way of thinking eventually, because my view is the correct one. Even when I change my mind.
So for years, I considered myself a Libertarian. I tried to vote for Libertarian candidates when there were any, and often went for the conservative when there weren't (except for previously-noted Democrats whom I admired).
But I slowly came to a realization - an epiphany if you will. None of it matters. I still remember George Wallace's assertion that there isn't a "dime's worth of difference" between the two parties, and I came to realize he was right about that, but moreover, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between any US politicians. They all promise what they believe will get them elected. They all lie through their teeth about that. They keep none of their promises, unless they are small and inconsequential and easy to achieve. Their main goal in life is to be re-elected, and they will do anything - ANYTHING - to make that happen.
Bills are introduced and debated as if they mattered - they are all set-pieces, theatrical displays that mean nothing at all. This brouhaha over a military funding bill - it is all for posturing and posing - means nothing. In the end, nothing will change, because nobody wants anything to change. It does not matter who is elected, we will keep doing what we do. No one has any desire to get anything done, because the threads of power are so interlocked that if they tried, they'd lose the support of those who they appear to oppose, and they'd be pulled down. Those who get voted in and understand how the game is played remain if they play ball. Those who do not understand, or those who think they are really there to do anything, get the boot, and quickly.
Do you seriously think that when a Democrat stands up and delivers a blistering diatribe against a Republican, there is any real heat behind it? It's all laughing up the sleeve, as they go through the backstage machinations that make it look to the electorate like they're actually doing anything at all besides lining their pockets, voting their friends largesse, and taking everything they can get their hands on.
When a Congressperson is tossed overboard from time to time, or a staffer pushed under a bus, it is done to mollify a public that has temporarily raised its ire and made threatening noises. It's all back-office agreements and handshakes and patronage, and the tossed politico or wonk or what-have-you soon finds tenure in a university or a on the board of a corporation or in a thinktank somewhere, to continue to keep the game in motion and wait to see if they get a turn in the bigs again.
In the meantime, we citizens get all bent out of shape and go at each other hammer and tongs over this proposal or that bill in the House. When Congress wants to do something really nasty to us, they set the stage first by someone tossing out a 'flag burning amendment' bill or a 'no gay marriage' bill, and while the public rants and raves on both sides of the issue, they get busy doing whatever it was that they actually were intended to do, which generally involved the public getting broken down shotgun style without lube or the benefit of a reacharound.
Do you think for one second that ANYONE in politics gives a rat's patoot about gay marriage? About burning flags? About national health care coverage? NO! They will bring these things up so that they can be re-elected by those who do care about such things. It's all like professional wrestling - entertainment, with a foregone conclusion. There is never any chance element to it - that would not be safe for all of them, which means it would not be safe for any of them.
The Mafia allegedly requires a 'made man' to commit a murder, and the other members can ensure the new member's continued loyalty because they share that crime in common, and they can all hang for their involvement in each other's crimes. No one is fully trusted until they become 'made'.
Do you think Congress is any different? Really? Have you any evidence of that?
Vote for whomever you like. Be 'for' or 'against' whatever you like. I have my desires, they haven't gone away. But I no longer believe that anything any of us (members of the public) do matters one little bit.
Not that things don't change - they do. But they changed in a manner that is agreed-upon by both both sides, in a manner that allows maximum robbery of the public, where everyone gets to look like a winner to their constituents, and it is all planned and agreed upon in advance, like a WWF 'championship'.
And not that this does not damage the nation - it does. This train will fall off the tracks - such extreme pillaging must eventually destroy all public trust, empty the public coffers, and beggar our nation in the world. But it won't matter whom we vote for - that will happen when it happens, and nothing we can do will speed it up or slow it down, let alone stop it.
It has made a cynic out of me, and it will eventually make a cynic out of everyone. You know what comes after that, I need not belabor the obvious recourse. |
|
|
| keremoner |
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
If Obama wasn't a socialist, I would vote for him...
I couldn't vote for him even if he was not a socialist. I believe that the presidency is way too important to trust to someone who has exhibited the absolute lack of judgement that he has (with Rev. Wright, Rezko, associations with likes of Ayres, etc.) and lack of any executive experience at all. Community organizing is akin to saying I sold lemonade as a kid. At least you are an executive selling lemonade. Obama did not even vote in the senate most of the time (voted present) and to top it all, I don't like my president's wife calling this a "mean country" and that she is proud of America for the first time.
Take my word, this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He will bring us change allright: One for the worse unless you happen to be socialist.
Sorry, didn't mean to start a political thread but couldn't help myself. |
|
|
| LionSpeed |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
I couldn't vote for him even if he was not a socialist. I believe that the presidency is way too important to trust to someone who has exhibited the absolute lack of judgement that he has (with Rev. Wright, Rezko, associations with likes of Ayres, etc.) and lack of any executive experience at all. Community organizing is akin to saying I sold lemonade as a kid. At least you are an executive selling lemonade. Obama did not even vote in the senate most of the time (voted present) and to top it all, I don't like my president's wife calling this a "mean country" and that she is proud of America for the first time.
Take my word, this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He will bring us change allright: One for the worse unless you happen to be socialist.
Sorry, didn't mean to start a political thread but couldn't help myself.
Couldn't agree more. :claphead: |
|
|
| gmc74 |
Similar to the post that Tim re-posted above, I don't really find myself fitting into either party. I have always considered myself a Republican, but I am more of a Libertarian.
I am fiscally conservative, but don't confuse that with the current administration's policies. I think we should spend within our means, just like you and I have to.
I believe in maintaining our civil liberties and I think that all people are equal, and who the hell am I to say that two men or two women can't be married? I don't have a problem with the word God on our money, but at the same time, I don't care what your religion is.
I am in favor of a national sales tax instead of an income tax, with this, you will generate income base on people's spending, there will be no way to shelter your money (something that the rich have always figured out how to do), and you will take in a huge amount of income from tourists. The IRS will become a thing of the past as well...
I am also a huge fan of term limits, and think every elected position, whether it is on the local, state or federal level, should have a limit on how long someone can serve. This is how we get into the situation where politicians are constantly working towards their next re-election, rather than working on the issues.
As for Obama, his need to give to the poor scares the hell out of me. He seems to want to create a welfare state, and that is not a good thing. Helping hands are one thing, hand outs are another.
I do like the fact that he doesn't have a lot of experience. A politician is like a con man, with more experience they figure out how to screw us over with out us knowing... I am not sure that is a good thing.
All of that being said, McCain will get my vote because his ideals are closer in line with mine. He is not a perfect candidate, but then again, perfect candidates don't exist. |
|
|
| keremoner |
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
As for Obama, his need to give to the poor scares the hell out of me. He seems to want to create a welfare state, and that is not a good thing. Helping hands are one thing, hand outs are another.
I agree with you gmc74. i am aliberterian myself. I am fiscally and national security wise conservative. All other issues, I am a big liberterian. Those two are the overriding issues as far as individual freedoms go and that is why we liberterians overwhelmingly vote republican (since there are no fiscally conservative Dems out there). I am not crazy about McCain either but the alternative is disasterous. Obama WILL bring about the biggest destruction to us since the New Deal of FDR. Say goodbye to your tax breaks (he said he will not renew the tax breaks for the"rich"- in my house we make near $200K so that includes me - try living like a king in D.C. area with two kids on that money!!) He also said (in his web site) he will increase the cap gains from 15% to 25%. That shows his utter socialistic tendencies and ignorance of our capitalist system. Also don't forget the 'Poverty Czar' he will create. Trust me, if he is elected along with the apparent clear majority Dems will have in the legislature, we are looking at both economic as well as national security threats to our country that we have never faced before. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
I agree with you gmc74. i am aliberterian myself. I am fiscally and national security wise conservative. All other issues, I am a big liberterian. Those two are the overriding issues as far as individual freedoms go and that is why we liberterians overwhelmingly vote republican (since there are no fiscally conservative Dems out there). I am not crazy about McCain either but the alternative is disasterous. Obama WILL bring about the biggest destruction to us since the New Deal of FDR. Say goodbye to your tax breaks (he said he will not renew the tax breaks for the"rich"- in my house we make near $200K so that includes me - try living like a king in D.C. area with two kids on that money!!) He also said (in his web site) he will increase the cap gains from 15% to 25%. That shows his utter socialistic tendencies and ignorance of our capitalist system. Also don't forget the 'Poverty Czar' he will create. Trust me, if he is elected along with the apparent clear majority Dems will have in the legislature, we are looking at both economic as well as national security threats to our country that we have never faced before.
I am not too concerned with the tax breaks not being renewed, I wasn't in favor of them to begin with. I think the economic stimulus checks were a joke as well.
I think we should all be paying our fair share, we have to get out of debt at some point, and we aren't doing anythng about it. The answer isn't to raise taxes (it surely isn't to lower them), it is to cut spending.
Sure, lowering taxes helps me as well, and the economic stimulus checks probably didn't affect many people here since you don't get one if your AGI is over 150k or 160k. The limit should have been around 50k for an individual, 100k for a couple.
The current administration has tried the method of lowering taxes + increasing spending and for some odd reason, the dept got higher... odd... sigh... :confused:
What gets me the most about Obama is the crap about Change and Hope... first off, we all want change, but we want to know what the change is that he is proposing, and details are few. Hope??? Really, Hope??? Hope is not a strategy Obama, maybe no one taught you that one. |
|
|
| Fabvsix |
McCain
Obama's wife is a "snake in the grass" .......she wrote some nasty stuff while in college..... |
|
|
| keremoner |
quote:
Originally posted by Fabvsix
McCain
Obama's wife is a "snake in the grass" .......she wrote some nasty stuff while in college.....
Like I said before. Those two are a couple of wolves in sheep's clothing.
gmc74:
I agree with cutting spending but with a war going that was out of question unless you wanted a recession starting in 2002. If we did not have the tax cuts back then we'd be in a deep recession for the past few years. National debt is important but cannot be solved when immediate concerns like war and recession are staring in the face. The tax increase that I am most annoyed by is the proposed increase in the cap gains from 15 to 25%. So much of our economic activity is directly related to it that such a steep increase will hurt not only businesses but the millions of boomers getting ready to retire. They already lost a great deal in their home equities and now they'll be hit with much higher taxes on their retirement savings. Even with other tax cuts, I cannot symphatize with higher taxes since we already pay close to 50% in taxes when you consider fed, state, medicare, fica, sales and real estate taxes, and other excise taxes. Targeted tax cuts always increase revenue to the treasury (see under JFK as well as Reagan). We just need to spend less and after this Iraq business is taken care of, if Dems allow it, we need to go on a tighter budget. |
|
|
| Fabvsix |
so perhaps if obama asks Hillary to run as VP that way she could poison him while in office as many have wispered to me would happen...
LOL
I guess the clintons are capable of "removing" human beings?
This will be the most exciting campaign in US history says "Barbara Walters".......
I think ALL politicans are evil and capable of doing harm to human beings......
Once said that ONLY crooked politicans can run LOUISIANA and Huey Long was one of them.......as was Edwin Edwards....Isn't he serving time????? :eek: |
|
|
| keremoner |
quote:
Originally posted by Fabvsix
ONLY crooked politicans can run LOUISIANA and Huey Long was one of them.......as was Edwin Edwards....Isn't he serving time????? :eek:
Don't forget the former governer, Kathleen, and the mayor of New Orleans. They may not have been crooked but were definitely incompetent. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
Like I said before. Those two are a couple of wolves in sheep's clothing.
gmc74:
I agree with cutting spending but with a war going that was out of question unless you wanted a recession starting in 2002. If we did not have the tax cuts back then we'd be in a deep recession for the past few years. National debt is important but cannot be solved when immediate concerns like war and recession are staring in the face. The tax increase that I am most annoyed by is the proposed increase in the cap gains from 15 to 25%. So much of our economic activity is directly related to it that such a steep increase will hurt not only businesses but the millions of boomers getting ready to retire. They already lost a great deal in their home equities and now they'll be hit with much higher taxes on their retirement savings. Even with other tax cuts, I cannot symphatize with higher taxes since we already pay close to 50% in taxes when you consider fed, state, medicare, fica, sales and real estate taxes, and other excise taxes. Targeted tax cuts always increase revenue to the treasury (see under JFK as well as Reagan). We just need to spend less and after this Iraq business is taken care of, if Dems allow it, we need to go on a tighter budget.
If you are referring to the current housing correction as someone losing half their equity, you are forgetting to mention the fact that the houses were way over valued in the last few years. It isn't like a house bought 25 years ago is worth less today, it is worth a lot more.
War spending aside, I wish that was the only area we were wasting money, but it isn't. Our government wastes money everywhere, and the current president has been as bad as others (yes, I voted for him), but not as bad as Clinton was.
As for taxes, if you are paying 50% in taxes, you need a better accountant who can teach you about tax shelters. My wife and I are in the same tax bracket, and have no kids, and I probably pay half of that. If you have properly invested your money, capital gains really won't be an issue upon retirement for the average person.
We need to look at the average person, not you or I. The median household income is $48,201 (as of 2006, the last year with available data) and the median for couples is $69,716.
On the war, we are spending way too much money over there. We are stuck in the situation that W put us in, but we should be using the money that Iraq generates for oil to fix their country, but we don't touch it because we are afraid that others will believe that we invaded for the oil.
We need to find resolution and get out, I know it is easier said than done, but we can't afford to police the region.
BTW, you have mentioned a recession. We aren't currently in a recession, nor have we been in one since 2001. I don't think being fiscally responsible would ever kick off a recession, spending with out any care for our debt is what causes it. |
|
|
| keremoner |
First of all, the tax cut of 2002 was 5 years before the housing bust and had nothing to do with it. Tax cuts were instituted because post 9/11 there was a clear danger of a serious economic slow-down.
Secondly, we are all paying close to 50% in taxes. Yes, my effective federal tax rate has never exceeded 9% in the past few years but I got news for you. What you pay to your state, medicare, fica, sales taxes, real estate and personal property taxes, etc. are also taxes and when you add them up, close to 50% of your salary (especially for middle income earners making under 70-80K) is confiscated (unless you are somehow immune from all the taxes I mentioned above)
Lastly, consumer spending is necessary to stave off recession. Debt has very little to do with economic slow down (as evidenced by low interest rates over the past decade or more)
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
If you are referring to the current housing correction as someone losing half their equity, you are forgetting to mention the fact that the houses were way over valued in the last few years. It isn't like a house bought 25 years ago is worth less today, it is worth a lot more.
War spending aside, I wish that was the only area we were wasting money, but it isn't. Our government wastes money everywhere, and the current president has been as bad as others (yes, I voted for him), but not as bad as Clinton was.
As for taxes, if you are paying 50% in taxes, you need a better accountant who can teach you about tax shelters. My wife and I are in the same tax bracket, and have no kids, and I probably pay half of that. If you have properly invested your money, capital gains really won't be an issue upon retirement for the average person.
We need to look at the average person, not you or I. The median household income is $48,201 (as of 2006, the last year with available data) and the median for couples is $69,716.
On the war, we are spending way too much money over there. We are stuck in the situation that W put us in, but we should be using the money that Iraq generates for oil to fix their country, but we don't touch it because we are afraid that others will believe that we invaded for the oil.
We need to find resolution and get out, I know it is easier said than done, but we can't afford to police the region.
BTW, you have mentioned a recession. We aren't currently in a recession, nor have we been in one since 2001. I don't think being fiscally responsible would ever kick off a recession, spending with out any care for our debt is what causes it.
|
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
First of all, the tax cut of 2002 was 5 years before the housing bust and had nothing to do with it. Tax cuts were instituted because post 9/11 there was a clear danger of a serious economic slow-down.
Secondly, we are all paying close to 50% in taxes. Yes, my effective federal tax rate has never exceeded 9% in the past few years but I got news for you. What you pay to your state, medicare, fica, sales taxes, real estate and personal property taxes, etc. are also taxes and when you add them up, close to 50% of your salary (especially for middle income earners making under 70-80K) is confiscated (unless you are somehow immune from all the taxes I mentioned above)
Lastly, consumer spending is necessary to stave off recession. Debt has very little to do with economic slow down (as evidenced by low interest rates over the past decade or more)
I am not sure why you are comparing a tax cut to the housing crash, I didn't. I merely mentioned that those who "already lost a great deal in their home equities" were also the benefactors of an artificial home boom.
You know we were in a recession in 2001, the deficit spending in 2001/2002, was a temporary fix and we are dealing with the consequences now.
As for 50% tax, for 200K in annual earnings?
Ok, lets break that down.
You said 9% federal = 18K
SS(even though it capped at 97.5k) + Med (7.65%) = 15K
State and local = 10K (mine are less than 4%)
Property Tax = 6K (guessing, mine is less than 3K)
That puts us around 49K, or just under 25%. This doesn't include sales tax, but since it is impossible for you to spend 51K on sales tax, with only 151K left to spend, and I am pretty sure there aren't any areas in the country with a 33% sales tax...
I would venture a guess that you spend 25-35% of your income in taxes, but that is the price of living in this country.
The BS that we need tax cuts to help us, at our income levels??? Is a joke!
You don't think the national debt has an affect on the economy?
Here are some numbers for you -
Over $1000 per person (man, woman, and child) is spent on the interest alone every year.
17 cents of every federal tax dollar is spent on interest alone.
Those numbers are 4 years old and the debt has gone up, and tax revenue has gone down, so they are conservative at best.
The increasing debt starts a vicious cycle where our debtors charge higher interest rates on loans, which causes the dollar to fall, which causes debtors to charge higher interest rates, which causes the dollar to fall... and so on
While this is occurring, the interest we are paying is climbing, so the amount in taxes needed just for interest payments is increasing, meaning that taxes need to remain high, or go higher to pay JUST THE INTEREST, which means there is less money for everything else, unless we raise taxes.
Yep, you are right very little to do with the economy... |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
"Yeah, it happened. The military hadn't had a pay raise in over 20 years, and then one year, Congress adjourned without voting on a pay bill for the military - we all went six weeks without a paycheck. Some of the married service people were reduced to bagging groceries at night to try to pay for food for their families. Some got evicted, some lost their cars, some lost their families, and the public sentiment was that military people got just what they deserved."
This is just a bunch of BS, which to me makes the whole post very suspect. I was is the military during that period and this is completely false.
While I agree with most of what is written in that post, it is unfortunate that the author did not stick to facts. This type of "propoganda" is damaging to the intended message.
Yes, Obama is definitely a socialist. His long time friend and mentor that is supposed to be a teacher of the word of God makes Obama look very bad. It is many years too late for Obama to distance himself from this man. To have not done so makes it at least appear that he agreed with him until it became politically expedient to disagree.
G |
|
|
| keremoner |
I did not say my taxes, I said taxpayers making under 70-80K (especially if they do not have major deductions like mortgage interest, capital losses they need to recoup, children, etc.) if you go back to my post.
I can handle this economy but many less fortunate cannot.
Yes I agree that reducing the debt is important but during economic slow downs, giving priority to debt repayment over what would directly stimulate the economy (tax cuts) is like cutting your nose off despite your face.
Not to minimize the debt problem, national debt, although large, is still not too alarming in relationship to the size of our economy. That doesn't mean we should ignore the problem, but we cannot risk derailing the whole economy by ignoring short term problems like recessions either.
One last thing, our debtors are quite happy earning around 4% (near record low) on our L/T treasuries so there goes your argument out the window I guess.
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
I am not sure why you are comparing a tax cut to the housing crash, I didn't. I merely mentioned that those who "already lost a great deal in their home equities" were also the benefactors of an artificial home boom.
You know we were in a recession in 2001, the deficit spending in 2001/2002, was a temporary fix and we are dealing with the consequences now.
As for 50% tax, for 200K in annual earnings?
Ok, lets break that down.
You said 9% federal = 18K
SS(even though it capped at 97.5k) + Med (7.65%) = 15K
State and local = 10K (mine are less than 4%)
Property Tax = 6K (guessing, mine is less than 3K)
That puts us around 49K, or just under 25%. This doesn't include sales tax, but since it is impossible for you to spend 51K on sales tax, with only 151K left to spend, and I am pretty sure there aren't any areas in the country with a 33% sales tax...
I would venture a guess that you spend 25-35% of your income in taxes, but that is the price of living in this country.
The BS that we need tax cuts to help us, at our income levels??? Is a joke!
You don't think the national debt has an affect on the economy?
Here are some numbers for you -
Over $1000 per person (man, woman, and child) is spent on the interest alone every year.
17 cents of every federal tax dollar is spent on interest alone.
Those numbers are 4 years old and the debt has gone up, and tax revenue has gone down, so they are conservative at best.
The increasing debt starts a vicious cycle where our debtors charge higher interest rates on loans, which causes the dollar to fall, which causes debtors to charge higher interest rates, which causes the dollar to fall... and so on
While this is occurring, the interest we are paying is climbing, so the amount in taxes needed just for interest payments is increasing, meaning that taxes need to remain high, or go higher to pay JUST THE INTEREST, which means there is less money for everything else, unless we raise taxes.
Yep, you are right very little to do with the economy...
|
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
I did not say my taxes, I said taxpayers making under 70-80K (especially if they do not have major deductions like mortgage interest, capital losses they need to recoup, children, etc.) if you go back to my post.
I can handle this economy but many less fortunate cannot.
Yes I agree that reducing the debt is important but during economic slow downs, giving priority to debt repayment over what would directly stimulate the economy (tax cuts) is like cutting your nose off despite your face.
Not to minimize the debt problem, national debt, although large, is still not too alarming in relationship to the size of our economy. That doesn't mean we should ignore the problem, but we cannot risk derailing the whole economy by ignoring short term problems like recessions either.
One last thing, our debtors are quite happy earning around 4% (near record low) on our L/T treasuries so there goes your argument out the window I guess.
My post, which quoted your post stating that you had a family income of near 200k and making statements about taxes and how it is hard to raise a family on it, so forgive me if I didn't realize that you were referring to something that you had not mentioned yet.
People need to live with in their means, it is pretty simple. Here in the US, people love to live above their means, and that is true of our government as well.
Taxes are a part of life. I am a fan of a flat tax, yes, it will hurt me in the wallet, but I think it is the right way to go. A flat tax will be somewhere around 17%, which is almost double what I pay for federal with my write offs.
There isn't a more fair system out there, but I bet it is unlikely this will ever pass since it will hit the richest the hardest, and most of them have the same attitude that keremoner has.
I would love to see a link that refers to our happy debtors who are being paid 4%, a near record low as you put it, because I can't find anything stating that. |
|
|
|
