[cgc]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Who does this guy think he is? Thank you, oh wonderful overlord, for enabling me to bust my ass to make a decent living. Without you letting me do so, where would I be!?
Thankfully the government invented the internet so I'm able to post this rant online for others to see.
He missed one key point about Business Owners. They were willing to take a risk that no one else was that not only enriched themselves but our society as well. That risk is what defines a business owner from an employee. That risk is what pushes our standard of living up. That risk is why you and I enjoy the comforts and luxuries that we do today. It certainly isn't the dependency class that his policies are enabling.

By the President's logic, nobody ever did anything...there was always someone before us that placed the silver spoon gently in our mouth.

The people who built the roads didn't build the roads, they had people before them who mapped the roads and built the trails, but those people didn't do anything either because they too had people before them who scrawled a trail with a stick, but they didn't do squat either because there was this river there that created a nice path, but that river ain't nothing because the caveman's fires promoted rain upstream that created the river, but you gotta be kidding me cuz the caveman didn't do it as he had pre-caveman...and it goes on and on.

Using the opposite viewpoint, nothing's your fault either cuz there's always someone prior to you who set you up...we are all mindless automatons in the eyes of some...

[hyteckit]

Mitt Romney says Olympians didn't get to the Olympics on their own.
Mitt Romney says Olympians didn't win any metals on their own.

Well, Mitt Romney took over $1.3 in government bailout or tax money while he was running the Olympics. Why couldn't Mitt Romney do it on his own with government money?

http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/07/23/after-romney-pledged-transparent-olympics-key-documents-were-destroyed/MRBRtSitxnSgVLhGbIq1jI/story.html

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Hwhat?

Businesses from Apple-down have warned the President that his policies and rhetoric are hostile. When you stand before the American people, businessmen and women alike, and go off half-cocked in a smarmy tone suggesting they're beholden to their government for using taxpayer-funded provisions; you're not going to convince them of your sense of fairness with regard to their challenges. Gaffes like "the private sector is fine" and "you didn't build that" make them believe, on the whole, the President is not in touch with their challenges and in fact has things exactly backwards. This does not encourage them.

Nope, putting the nail in the coffin of all those people who got the pitchforks out because Obama dared point out everyone uses the system in one form or another.

That's what Romney was doing, that's not what Obama is doing. In case it wasn't clear, Obama's senior adviser doubled-down on the message with fiery, arm-swinging rhetoric about businesses taking their wares to market on the roads built by taxpayers. Uh... they're taxpayers too and in fact, if there is some allegiance owed the government for these provisions, you'd owe the same gratitude to the wealthy who have funded and continue to fund the majority of these provisions.

Gloating? Disappointed? Relieved?

Disappointed in my President yes and while not yet relieved, I am optimistic that we can see this Administration out of office. I wouldn't gloat about any failures of our system because I'm confident they exist on both sides of the aisle to greater or lesser degrees.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Compared to conditions that would stimulate growth in the small and medium business sectors.

When and who raised the taxes on these businesses?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's what Romney was doing, that's not what Obama is doing. In case it wasn't clear, Obama's senior adviser doubled-down on the message with fiery, arm-swinging rhetoric about businesses taking their wares to market on the roads built by taxpayers. Uh... they're taxpayers too and in fact, if there is some allegiance owed the government for these provisions, you'd owe the same gratitude to the wealthy who have funded and continue to fund the majority of these provisions.

This sounds like a steaming load of election year spin.

Disappointed in my President yes and while not yet relieved, I am optimistic that we can see this Administration out of office. I wouldn't gloat about any failures of our system because I'm confident they exist on both sides of the aisle to greater or lesser degrees.

Here's my question: How can you be disappointed in a President who didn't achieve "Hope & Change" you didn't support?


---

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

1) A broken tax system.

Broken in what way? It unfairly favors the poor?

The reason nearly half of Americans pay no taxes is because you can't get blood from a stone. The reason the upper percentiles pay so much is because they have so much of the money (And it continues to accumulate upwards). You can't pay taxes when your wages are stagnating compared to everyone else. If the rich want to see the lower percentiles pay more taxes, they'd have to pay them more. I think they'd rather keep their money.

It's also worth noting that this is the result of the Bush tax cuts and a progressive tax system. I fear for which one people would rather see modified.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

2) What would you care what taxes are used for if you're not paying any? Hey! Lets keep the guy in power thats making sure we don't pay a dime but expect the entitlements all the same.

Everyone still pays SS, Medicare, State Income Taxes, Local Taxes, Sales Taxes (though not every state), Property Tax (If you're "lucky"), Gas taxes, cigarette taxes (if they smoke). There's no dodging some of your income going to government.

Snow-i?

[Barry Wulfe]

"A rising tide raises all boats." - John F. Kennedy

The infrastructure in America wasn't built with Government Money; it was built with TAXPAYER money. Those who took risks & succeeded paid a much larger share of that money pool; so yes, the wealthy did build those roads and bridges through their tax dollars. For those complaining that the wealthy did not physically build the roads; would we be better off if we had not employed other private companies to hire workers to build and maintain the roads?

Complaints about the wealthy sitting on their piles of cash; THINK! Why risk your own money in an economy where the reward for succeeding is to have your profits confiscated; the cost of losing is simply losing your money. Where is the incentive to try? I traveled to Eastern Europe before the fall of the Iron Curtain & was shocked by the poverty & lack of ambition from a society where you were not allowed to profit from your hard work. I have visited most of those same areas in the Post-Soviet era and the difference is night and day. Human nature dictates that most individuals wish to have a better life & provide a good future for themselves & their families. In a free society; there will always be winners & losers; based upon multiple variables; however, the losers in our society are most often better off than all but the biggest winners in controlled / constrained economies. Greece and Spain did not end up with their current economic problems via free markets. Allowing workers to retire at an early age (having paid little if any of their own funds into retirement) then promising to pay for all their living expenses and health care is economical suicide. The money has to come from somewhere and you can only tax people so much, before they loose all incentive to work hard. (What's the use if the government is going to take everything away anyway. Especially if the Government promises to take care of you if you don't earn money.) There are countless variables that go into an economic system; but when Government punishes those who do and rewards those who do-not, the result is economic chaos.

Granted, taxes are not the only reason the 1% (or 5% or 47%) are hesitant to put money into the economy. With all of the unfettered regulations passed by unelected agencies; people fear that they may be penalized for violating some obscure regulation among tens of thousands of punitive restrictions placed upon activity. If you want to save endangered animals; reward those who take proactive measures, rather than destroy the lives of people who unknowingly harm an endangered animal; when they decide to clear brush on their own land. There has to be common sense!

AND PLEASE don't get into the bail-outs. I'm conservative, but I believe that they were (for the most part) stupid moves. There are signs that some of the failures were the result of illegal market manipulation by the Super-Uber rich and Foreign interests. This should be addressed by market controls over the short selling of securities & trading safeguards that can inflict serious harm on those who try to artificially manipulate markets. (This goes for Oil, Gas markets; as well as all other commodities. ) While some leeway is necessary in order for markets to flow free & efficiently; naked sales (selling what you do not own) should be limited to a very small percentage of actual - existing - supplies and they should require a substantial reserve be retained as collateral; should the investment decision go bad.

Regardless; we would all be better off today if the bailouts never happened. The argument that America would have lost its automotive industry & thousands of jobs without those bailouts is complete lunacy. In reality; GM, Chrysler et-al would have been forced to file for bankruptcy. Bond & Shareholders would have lost most if not all of their investments; but the companies still maintained intrinsic value. New investors; with better management skills would have come-in; purchased the companies & restructured them to become profitable again. (Ford made the tough calls necessary to avoid the need for a bail-out & have succeeded by making sound decisions on how to offer customers a product they really want - as opposed to a Government run automative company producing an overpriced "Green" car that no-one wants & costs taxpayers about $20,000 for every car sold.)

SO - MR. PRESIDENT; having never held an honest job your entire life; never managing a payroll, never producing a good or service that people want to BUY; your comments are an insult to those who have risked everything they have; have sacrificed time that they would have preferred to have spent with friends or family so that they could work tirelessly to start & grow a business; which in turn, provided PAYING JOBS to many more individuals. Big Government only sucks the life out of an economy. With the exception of LIMITED regulation to prevent unethical market manipulation & providing necessary common services (Such as National Defense); society prospers when central governments get out of the way. (Local Government, accountable to Local Voters is more effective when it comes to solving Local Problems.) Don't force taxpayers to send all of their money to DC; so that bureaucrats can waste / spend / loose half of those funds in the process of sending it back to the local level. As for all of those poor government employees (GSA anyone) who might loose their jobs; our society & economy would be far better off if they were employed by the private sector in jobs that actually produce something. (keep in mind that without overly complex regulations people loose the fear of risking their own money, trying to create new products / ideas that they can sell for a profit.) A society free of unintelligible regulations is one that can prosper & provide a better life for ALL.

A rising tide will raise all boats. Draining the pond, leaves everyone floundering & suffocating.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Barry Wulfe 

The infrastructure in America wasn't built with Government Money; it was built with TAXPAYER money. Those who took risks & succeeded paid a much larger share of that money pool; so yes, the wealthy did build those roads and bridges through their tax dollars. For those complaining that the wealthy did not physically build the roads; would we be better off if we had not employed other private companies to hire workers to build and maintain the roads?

This has been said a number of times now. It is an argument in support of the taxes, right?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

When and who raised the taxes on these businesses?

Does that matter in the slightest? Our economy continues to sputter and stall.

Broken in what way?

It unfairly favors the poor?[/quote] No, it favors big business who can hire gobs of tax lawyers to give them an advantage and keep the little guys out of the market. Helps keep the poor poor and the wealthy wealthy. There is no competition in the market place as the little guy has to spend a significant portion of his time trying to stay compliant.

Do you really feel that a 73 thousand page tax code is a well oiled, working machine?

[quite]
The reason nearly half of Americans pay no taxes is because you can't get blood from a stone. The reason the upper percentiles pay so much is because they have so much of the money (And it continues to accumulate upwards). You can't pay taxes when your wages are stagnating compared to everyone else. If the rich want to see the lower percentiles pay more taxes, they'd have to pay them more. I think they'd rather keep their money.
It's also worth noting that this is the result of the Bush tax cuts and a progressive tax system. I fear for which one people would rather see modified.
Everyone still pays SS, Medicare, State Income Taxes, Local Taxes, Sales Taxes (though not every state), Property Tax (If you're "lucky"), Gas taxes, cigarette taxes (if they smoke). [/quote]

But why are your wages stagnating compared to everyone else? Why is the money pooling at the top? I'll give you a hint - it has to do with the marriage of big business and government. Too Big to fail, for example. The government is choosing winners and losers and small and medium businesses stand no chance based solely on the value they add to society - which is exactly the idea behind capitalism.

Take the example of Caterpillar that was posted earlier in this thread. They are doing horrible things to their employees despite record profits. Where'd those profits come from? The majority from government and government contractors. Their revenue is all but garaunteed. We the people have no means of boycotting, voicing our displeasure, shopping around to competitors or otherwise voting with our dollars because the government has already picked them as a winner. The problem isn't Caterpillar, its the driving force of competition being largely removed from their business model allowing them to do whatever they damn well please with not a peep from the powers that put them in that position.

There's no dodging some of your income going to government.
Snow-i?

Really dude, this is the 3rd time that i've had to point out that my problem is not with taxes in this thread. Do i need to quote it at the beginning of every post?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This has been said a number of times now. It is an argument in support of the taxes, right?

Taxes that support infrastructure yes. Unforuntunately as you've pointed out the percentage of total tax dollars going towards these things is small, and any increase in taxes has a hotdog's chance in fat camp of going towards said infrastructure.

[stupendousman]

The funny thing is, using Obama's logic, you can argue that the working people of America don't pay their fair share:

“If you’ve had a job and own a house, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I worked hard and my effort had value. It must be because I worked hard. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there who don't have jobs or homes.

“If you have a job and own a home or personal property, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in companies and banks who helped them expand. If you’ve got a home, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” he said.

“Homes don't just buy themselves, banks do and you pay them back. People took risks to provide you the opportunity to make money and have nice things, you didn't"

Same logic, but I think that even Obama would understand how poorly this would play. The sad thing is that he doesn't get why what he did say doesn't play much better.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Does that matter in the slightest? Our economy continues to sputter and stall.

It matters because as far as I know, taxes were higher in the past. So I'm looking for some evidence that this is not the case any more.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It unfairly favors the poor?

No, it favors big business who can hire gobs of tax lawyers to give them an advantage and keep the little guys out of the market. Helps keep the poor poor and the wealthy wealthy. There is no competition in the market place as the little guy has to spend a significant portion of his time trying to stay compliant.

Do you really feel that a 73 thousand page tax code is a well oiled, working machine?

I'm open to simplifying and closing loopholes in the corporate tax code. I'm not in favor of cutting their taxes while doing it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The reason nearly half of Americans pay no taxes is because you can't get blood from a stone. The reason the upper percentiles pay so much is because they have so much of the money (And it continues to accumulate upwards). You can't pay taxes when your wages are stagnating compared to everyone else. If the rich want to see the lower percentiles pay more taxes, they'd have to pay them more. I think they'd rather keep their money.
It's also worth noting that this is the result of the Bush tax cuts and a progressive tax system. I fear for which one people would rather see modified.
Everyone still pays SS, Medicare, State Income Taxes, Local Taxes, Sales Taxes (though not every state), Property Tax (If you're "lucky"), Gas taxes, cigarette taxes (if they smoke).

But why are your wages stagnating compared to everyone else? Why is the money pooling at the top? I'll give you a hint - it has to do with the marriage of big business and government. Too Big to fail, for example. The government is choosing winners and losers and small and medium businesses stand no chance based solely on the value they add to society - which is exactly the idea behind capitalism.

So low taxes for "job creators" is bullshit and doesn't work? Because that's still a lot of rich people at the top.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Take the example of Caterpillar that was posted earlier in this thread. They are doing horrible things to their employees despite record profits. Where'd those profits come from? The majority from government and government contractors. Their revenue is all but garaunteed. We the people have no means of boycotting, voicing our displeasure, shopping around to competitors or otherwise voting with our dollars because the government has already picked them as a winner. The problem isn't Caterpillar, its the driving force of competition being largely removed from their business model allowing them to do whatever they damn well please with not a peep from the powers that put them in that position.

I'll concede that government interference precludes an easy solution but couldn't citizenry organize protests in DC to demand Caterpillar be dropped?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Really dude, this is the 3rd time that i've had to point out that my problem is not with taxes in this thread. Do i need to quote it at the beginning of every post?

Well, I apologize if that wasn't your focus, however with your early railing on the "dependency class" and how they paid no taxes, the subject was bound to be discussed. Maybe the real dependency class is corporate america? Maybe we should worry about what they're paying first?

Originally Posted by Barry Wulfe 

"A rising tide raises all boats." - John F. Kennedy
The infrastructure in America wasn't built with Government Money; it was built with TAXPAYER money. Those who took risks & succeeded paid a much larger share of that money pool; so yes, the wealthy did build those roads and bridges through their tax dollars. For those complaining that the wealthy did not physically build the roads; would we be better off if we had not employed other private companies to hire workers to build and maintain the roads?
Complaints about the wealthy sitting on their piles of cash; THINK! Why risk your own money in an economy where the reward for succeeding is to have your profits confiscated; the cost of losing is simply losing your money. Where is the incentive to try?

Aren't corporate and top income tax rates like half what they were in the 60s? What was the incentive to try back then when they "confiscated" twice as much?

[screener]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Mitt Romney says Olympians didn't get to the Olympics on their own.
Mitt Romney says Olympians didn't win any metals on their own.
Well, Mitt Romney took over $1.3 in government bailout or tax money while he was running the Olympics. Why couldn't Mitt Romney do it on his own with government money?
http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/07/23/after-romney-pledged-transparent-olympics-key-documents-were-destroyed/MRBRtSitxnSgVLhGbIq1jI/story.html

I guess no one here cares.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by screener 

I guess no one here cares.

There is a sign posted above the Lounge that says "don't feed the trolls"

Plus, it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

There is a sign posted above the Lounge that says "don't feed the trolls"
Plus, it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Uhm, replying to screamer *IS* feeding him.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This sounds like a steaming load of election year spin.

You seem more interested in being argumentative than sensible. I juxtaposed "the rich" with "the government" to illustrate the absurdity in that line of reasoning. The suggestion is that business-owners are beholden to government because of the provisions it makes available to them. I believe this is just as silly as the notion of being beholden to the rich who funded most of it. You can call it spin while every economic indicator available to you shows businesses sitting on huge sums of money and a consumer as hesitant to buy as they ever have been. The President is not leading, only dividing, and that is a disappointment.

Here's my question: How can you be disappointed in a President who didn't achieve "Hope & Change" you didn't support?

Checks and balances are the only thing that have tempered our President's agenda and for this I am greatly thankful. The "hope" I had (while cautiously optimistic) was an opportunity to bridge racial and political divides while at the same time governing in a more moderate fashion to get things done. This President is downright smarmy, patently dishonest, woefully out of touch with our challenges, and absolutely shameless in perpetual campaign mode.

Enough about me, what about you? I'm guessing you'll be pulling the lever for Obama; any particular reason why?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You seem more interested in being argumentative than sensible.

I don't know about sensible, but I was trying to avoid getting into some nitpicky semantical argument.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I juxtaposed "the rich" with "the government" to illustrate the absurdity in that line of reasoning. The suggestion is that business-owners are beholden to government because of the provisions it makes available to them. I believe this is just as silly as the notion of being beholden to the rich who funded most of it.

Apparently I either didn't pick up on it or didn't bite.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You can call it spin while every economic indicator available to you shows businesses sitting on huge sums of money and a consumer as hesitant to buy as they ever have been. The President is not leading, only dividing, and that is a disappointment.

See this strikes me as a self-fullfilling prophecy. Businesses problem with Obama seems to be that he's Obama. Hasn't he given them credits and such? It's been almost four years and he still hasn't instituted his socialist muslim state that everyone feared. At some point you gotta blame the businesses for holding out.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Checks and balances are the only thing that have tempered our President's agenda and for this I am greatly thankful.

i.e., Your thankful he hasn't lived up to his campaign promises.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The "hope" I had (while cautiously optimistic) was an opportunity to bridge racial and political divides while at the same time governing in a more moderate fashion to get things done.

Oh, I think the Tea Party gets some credit here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This President is downright smarmy, patently dishonest, woefully out of touch with our challenges, and absolutely shameless in perpetual campaign mode.

I'm not going to argue perception with the exception of the last point. Perpetual campaign mode? I wish. Obama in the past 6 months has shown more fire and spine than in the last three years. Hilariously, it's backfired to some degree for me because it just leaves me more infuriated about what he might have attempted the past three years.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Enough about me, what about you? I'm guessing you'll be pulling the lever for Obama; any particular reason why?

Well, this could be a post unto itself. Ending last year I certainly was open some new leadership. Obama's track record on civil liberties is as revolting as his predecessor and that weighs highly on me. Aside from that, there aren't too many things he's done that wow me, but unfortunately ACA hit me right at home and I'm highly in favor of it.

So, looking at the Republican field, I began grooming potential options. Bachman - a modern day McCarthy. Out. Santorum - Abortion, abortion abortion! Religion, religion, religion! Out. Perry - There's three things I don't like about him. He puts Bush into perspective as not being as utterly clueless and poorly spoken by comparison, I wasn't convinced he was all that amazing a governor, and the third. Um. I forget the third. Cain - LOL no. People couldn't tell if he was legitimate or performance art.

So what are we left with? Romney and Gingrich.

I can't say I'm a fan of Gingrich, but the guy has a knack to wow you either with the breadth of his knowledge or by taking a completely sensible, moderate position. And then the next day he's walking back completely in context quotes on Fox News. He obliterates the line between confidence and arrogance and transitions into walking hubris. Perhaps if he'd won the nomination he could have demonstrated his qualifications better. Standing on a dais, eviscerating Wolf Blitzer or some other journalist for bringing up things he actually did or said by using the scare term "liberal media" turned me off. Too intellectually dishonest for an actual intellectual.

That leaves Romney. I talked about this in another thread. Governor Romney of Massachusetts? I could be convinced to vote for this guy. Reasonable and moderate. Hopeful Presidential Republican Nominee Romney? Pandering. Flip-flopping. Awkward. The short of it is, I have no idea who I'm getting. Is that better than a known quantity? Only if I hated that known quantity. Only if I feared it. I don't.

Romney might end up being a fairly moderate president. His stances that change with the wind might leave him constantly at odds with congress, fighting for what is popular in the face of his parties own platform. Or he might be a rubber stamp for Republican bills, undoing what little of Obama I enjoyed. Would he undo indefinite detention? Would undo drone strikes on citizens? He certainly hasn't said anything to that effect. So from that perspective I have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Couple that with the irrational hope that maybe, just maybe, a second-term Obama might have a spine to try to live up to his past ideals, and what am I left with? Do I reject him on principle and doom myself to four years of power for a party that seems intent on just continuing or expanding economic policies of the previous decade (A decade that is an utter failure) just to make a point? I'm not there yet. Obama has to push me further away first.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

There is a sign posted above the Lounge that says "don't feed the trolls"
Plus, it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Hence, no one here, this thread, cares.
Calling a person in this thread, forum, a troll is a personal attack isn't it?
Kinda like the turtleneck's weak shot.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...maybe, just maybe, a second-term Obama might have a spine to try to live up to his past ideals...

Hells yeah. That's why I voted for him in the first place, and that's why I'll be voting for him again. Don't know if there's much chance of that, but we can still hope.

Obama could pansy out and let Republican Cons run the show for another four years or I could pansy out and vote for Romney. I've got no problem holding up my end of the bargain, so fat chance of the latter. Now grow a pair and get something DONE, O.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Ah, a qualifier I see. So I'm guessing that'd be a "no" for you then?

It's interesting how people are outraged or jealous a segment of the population is a getting a "free ride" and living a lifestyle that most of us would agree is abso-****ing-lutely horrible.

They pursue it with vigor, seems they like it.

"If they put as much effort into work as they do trying to avoid it, they'd be some rich mother****ers." - Chris Rock

Do we have numbers for this? At what percentage of fraud does the system become too corrupt?

Hmm... Let's see. Looking at where we are now... [checks the map] and considering where the economy is... [points at location on map] we passed acceptable about 15 miles back.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

There is a sign posted above the Lounge that says "don't feed the trolls"
Plus, it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

It has everything to do with this thread.

If you are criticizing what Pres. Obama said, you should be criticizing what Mitt Romney said.

They are saying the same thing.


Then again, you failed to even understand what Pres. Obama said and others have corrected your lack of understanding.

[ebuddy]

If Romney had said what Obama said in context of advocating a tax increase on them, shortly after having said "they're doing fine", and with campaign advisor running around shrieking that business owners are bringing their wares to market on the backs of the taxpayers who built the roads; they'd have said the same thing.

Context does not help anything our President says, particularly in this case.

@ Dakar, given your desire to have Obama accomplish all those things he promised you and continues to promise you; there's a snowball's chance in hell of you ever voting Republican. Though I do appreciate your response and it's nice to know at least we're not dealing with a bunch of wishy-washy undecideds here.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hmm... Let's see. Looking at where we are now... [checks the map] and considering where the economy is... [points at location on map] we passed acceptable about 15 miles back.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

@ Dakar, given your desire to have Obama accomplish all those things he promised you and continues to promise you; there's a snowball's chance in hell of you ever voting Republican. Though I do appreciate your response and it's nice to know at least we're not dealing with a bunch of wishy-washy undecideds here.

"All those things" is a bit broad. GIven the current state of the Republican party there's a snowball's chance in hell of me ever voting for them, personified oh so well in Mitt Romney's magical transformation in views from Governor to Presidential candidate.

I mean, I have solid criticisms of Obama and the Republicans offer me no alternative on those issues. What am I supposed to do?

[OAW]

^^^^

Yeah the Tea Party has driven the modern day GOP clear off the rails. It wasn't always like that though. If Jack Kemp had been on the top of the ticket back in 1992 I would have had a really tough decision between him, Clinton, and Perot. Unfortunately, Republicans like Jack Kemp and Colin Powell are no longer representative of the GOP. Instead we have the likes of Michele Bachmann and Allen West.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I mean, I have solid criticisms of Obama and the Republicans offer me no alternative on those issues. What am I supposed to do?

Vote independent.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^^
Yeah the Tea Party has driven the modern day GOP clear off the rails. It wasn't always like that though. If Jack Kemp had been on the top of the ticket back in 1992 I would have had a really tough decision between him, Clinton, and Perot. Unfortunately, Republicans like Jack Kemp and Colin Powell are no longer representative of the GOP. Instead we have the likes of Michele Bachmann and Allen West.
OAW

Every time I think the discussion might be moving somewhere I see posts like this....

Que the right wing non-substance Reality TV response to the left wing non-substance Reality TV response. Next up is a character review of George Soros and Sarah Palin. Nevermind the content or direction of the discourse.

[OAW]

^^^^^

You say that as if I lied or something.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^^^
You say that as if I lied or something.
OAW

I say that as you are focused on all the wrong aspects - ones that are so shallow that they cannot be given credence. Instead of seeking middle ground you seek to divide left vs right. How about we speak about what we think and not bring out political celebrities that are about as worth as much as the stars of Orange County Housewives. It's an example of everything that is wrong with our country.


Errrghh MICHELLE BACHMANN...arghshgsh TEA PARTY. When was that central to the discussion we were having? How about expressing your views instead of citing the people that you see on ABC news?

Excuse me for the rhetoric but you are better than that - I've seen you discuss your views on their content. Your post was not that. You are capable of forming an argument and creating discussion. I've seen it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

"All those things" is a bit broad. GIven the current state of the Republican party there's a snowball's chance in hell of me ever voting for them, personified oh so well in Mitt Romney's magical transformation in views from Governor to Presidential candidate.
I mean, I have solid criticisms of Obama and the Republicans offer me no alternative on those issues. What am I supposed to do?

When your "solid criticisms" of Obama are essentially that he was not far enough to the left for you, it hardly makes sense to claim that you had given any (R), even a minute's thought.

Of course I'd expect you to give Obama another shot because he's saying the right things for you. Candidates will move back and forth from left to right in order to first solidify their own "base" and then move toward the middle to garner a broader base, but IMO your complaint of "magical transformations" in light of our current CIC and his known record, is particularly laughable.

[ebuddy]

So... yes, perhaps the Tea Party does take some credit for a more divisive government, but that's a tired narrative because they're a vocal bunch. However, it's a principled movement that has shaken constituencies and related elections to the core, ousting stale, establishment candidates, and replacing them with those with a little thicker spine who will actually commit to a platform and carry it through. Just once it'd be nice to see someone on the left accept some of the blame, for any of this. Nope, just finger-pointing. Finger-pointing at the Tea Party, finger-pointing at Fox News, finger-pointing at Republican obstructionism, finger-pointing at Bush, and on and on...

Sure, there are a couple of you who may consider a Republican as long as they had actively campaigned for Democrats and repeatedly establish their status as RINO on just about every major policy, but you'll have to pardon me if I don't acknowledge this "fairness". You must understand why it is they're not succeeding in the GOP. They're in the wrong party and insist on changing it to the degree that there is no discernible choice between them and Democrats. i.e. not good enough. This isn't being divisive or obstructionist, it's being principled. Divisive is the tone and rhetoric of your campaign. The kind of smarmy, low-ball means in which a message is delivered that seems geared more to the laughter of partisan shills than any interest in genuine compromise or progress.

[turtle777]

4679/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Vote independent.

Yup. Johnson works for me. It's not even a protest vote. I agree with a significant portion of his platform.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The kind of smarmy, low-ball means in which a message is delivered that seems geared more to the laughter of partisan shills than any interest in genuine compromise or progress.

The turtleneck's post after yours is pretty swarmy.

Probably not pertinent to this thread, but I couldn't resist,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/28/church-black-wedding.html

Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson say they had set the date and mailed invitations, but the day before their wedding they got bad news from the pastor of predominantly white First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs: Some members of the church complained about the black couple having a wedding there.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by screener 

Probably not pertinent to this thread, but I couldn't resist,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/28/church-black-wedding.html

This pastor should be ashamed of himself; cowering to the pressure of racist complainants. You should have posted this separately to bring more attention to it. I can't believe we're still dealing with this in the year 2012.

Back on topic - as it stands now under Obama; no success allowed.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Vote independent.

Pragmatism vs. Principle. I'm not at the latter yet.

(Also, is our conversation from above at an end?)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When your "solid criticisms" of Obama are essentially that he was not far enough to the left for you, it hardly makes sense to claim that you had given any (R), even a minute's thought.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold the phone here. While I understand the nutso neocons could support such a thing, I was under the impression the curtailing of civil liberties under Bush stemming from 9/11 were not, on the whole, accepted by Republicans, and I would think that, at the very least conservatives, if not every single American, would oppose the measures Obama took that removed the right of due process for American citizens in the name of expediency.

Am I really that mistaken?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course I'd expect you to give Obama another shot because he's saying the right things for you. Candidates will move back and forth from left to right in order to first solidify their own "base" and then move toward the middle to garner a broader base, but IMO your complaint of "magical transformations" in light of our current CIC and his known record, is particularly laughable.

No, like I said before, it's not so much that Obama is saying all the right things, it's more that Presidential Candidate Romney's stances are all the wrong ones. Like I said, I do support some of Obama's achievements in office, and these do more to sway me back (after looking at the other side) then any campaign claims I may have heard so far.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... yes, perhaps the Tea Party does take some credit for a more divisive government, but that's a tired narrative because they're a vocal bunch. However, it's a principled movement that has shaken constituencies and related elections to the core, ousting stale, establishment candidates, and replacing them with those with a little thicker spine who will actually commit to a platform and carry it through.

Winning seats: Fair. Having principles: Good. Spine: great. Holding everyone hostage because you are a small minority that doesn't have the necessary clout: Not fine.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Just once it'd be nice to see someone on the left accept some of the blame, for any of this. Nope, just finger-pointing. Finger-pointing at the Tea Party, finger-pointing at Fox News, finger-pointing at Republican obstructionism, finger-pointing at Bush, and on and on...

Accept blame for what?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Sure, there are a couple of you who may consider a Republican as long as they had actively campaigned for Democrats and repeatedly establish their status as RINO on just about every major policy, but you'll have to pardon me if I don't acknowledge this "fairness". You must understand why it is they're not succeeding in the GOP. They're in the wrong party and insist on changing it to the degree that there is no discernible choice between them and Democrats. i.e. not good enough. This isn't being divisive or obstructionist, it's being principled. Divisive is the tone and rhetoric of your campaign. The kind of smarmy, low-ball means in which a message is delivered that seems geared more to the laughter of partisan shills than any interest in genuine compromise or progress.

Your position ignores the nuance that is location based politics (i.e., Northern Republicans, Southern Democrats). Was Governor Romney a RINO?

It's also not about indistinguishable parties. Though I can understand that conclusion, given that the Republican's party lurch rightward has left us in a position where Democrats are somewhere we would have considered moderate twenty years ago (IMO). So we have liberal, conservative, and then ultra-conservative (tea-party). Kinda colors where the center "appears", doesn't it?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

4679/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
-t

She put the pieces together but im pretty sure she didn't create the molds to form the pieces, collected the materials and formed it into the molds to create the finished product used to piece it all together

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Pragmatism vs. Principle. I'm not at the latter yet.
(Also, is our conversation from above at an end?)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold the phone here. While I understand the nutso neocons could support such a thing, I was under the impression the curtailing of civil liberties under Bush stemming from 9/11 were not, on the whole, accepted by Republicans, and I would think that, at the very least conservatives, if not every single American, would oppose the measures Obama took that removed the right of due process for American citizens in the name of expediency.
Am I really that mistaken?

Not at all. IMO (for what it's worth to you) this makes you a proper liberal. How you fail to make this connection to a growing Executive Branch and the incredible abuses of the public trust already in existence is what surprises me. Yes, Romney was a RINO. He's no longer tucked away among Democrats, but is vying for the national stage. He's beholden to a narrative; one that I believe will keep him and government more closely in check. You say Obama's reserved and I agree if nothing more than political survival, but I know what he wants to do because I've listened to him. At this point it's not nearly as nuanced as you suggest. Obama is not asking for more tax revenue so he can pay down the debt and/or shrink the government. That money is already spoken for and it involves more bureaucracy.

No, like I said before, it's not so much that Obama is saying all the right things, it's more that Presidential Candidate Romney's stances are all the wrong ones.

This could only be true if you are exactly as I've described you. i.e. if you're left of Romney at this point, you're liberal. I wouldn't know if you're ultra-liberal. (Occupy) Otherwise, I don't think we have to go through and adjudicate each of your policy views. We've both been here a while.

Like I said, I do support some of Obama's achievements in office, and these do more to sway me back (after looking at the other side) then any campaign claims I may have heard so far.

All things being equal; one has a much worse record on the economy than the other and is obviously struggling to motivate the business sector.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not at all. IMO (for what it's worth to you) this makes you a proper liberal.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm not too concerned with my labeling (Outside of not being extremist) but try to focus on being consistent. That is challenging enough.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How you fail to make this connection to a growing Executive Branch and the incredible abuses of the public trust already in existence is what surprises me.

Didn't congress help give them this power? I didn't fail to make connection, but I did overlook it. Is it that you see the availability of the power as the problem? Because I see the people we're giving the power to exert it to as the issue.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, Romney was a RINO.

How can you trust him? 100% honest question. How can you believe he will stick to the values he's espousing now?

I don't know if it still holds, but I believe I heard in previous elections that past governance a better indicator of Presidential policy than campaign platform. But, I suppose you may be in the same position I am in – even if he was Governor Romney (RINO), you would vote for him over Obama, correct?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You say Obama's reserved and I agree if nothing more than political survival, but I know what he wants to do because I've listened to him. At this point it's not nearly as nuanced as you suggest. Obama is not asking for more tax revenue so he can pay down the debt and/or shrink the government. That money is already spoken for and it involves more bureaucracy.

Due to the length of the conversation I'm unclear on what context I said Obama is more reserved.

One interesting aspect about the "I know what he wants to do because I've listened to him" that I thought would be jumped on politically is his reversal on gay marriage. I believe he campaigned in '08 claiming he couldn't endorse it due to religion, yet he's done the 180º. This seems ripe for "just as liberal as we suspected!" ads.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This could only be true if you are exactly as I've described you. i.e. if you're left of Romney at this point, you're liberal.

And where is moderate? Where is the middle?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

All things being equal; one has a much worse record on the economy than the other and is obviously struggling to motivate the business sector.

That can not be argued. The economy has not recovered well under Obama. I don't have the acumen to judge why and I must admit to myself that if this was George Bush in office, any feeling of leniency or sympathy I might have for the situation he inherited would likely be mitigated.

What I (think) I know is that businesses have been making very good profits, yet are slow to hire. The workforce has been partly shrunk by eliminated government jobs. And that Obama has not been successful in getting his stimulus goals passed. That allows me to entertain doubt.

What I have seen from Romney hasn't been encouraging. I don't recall his jobs plan, but I do know that a major platform of his economic plan is tax cuts. I don't understand why this is supposed to work. We had generous tax cuts through-out the Bush administration and the economy chugged along in uninspiring fashion and wages stagnated. What new angle is being brought to the table here?

[The Final Dakar]

*ahem* Snow-i?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Does that matter in the slightest? Our economy continues to sputter and stall.

It matters because as far as I know, taxes were higher in the past. So I'm looking for some evidence that this is not the case any more.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It unfairly favors the poor?

No, it favors big business who can hire gobs of tax lawyers to give them an advantage and keep the little guys out of the market. Helps keep the poor poor and the wealthy wealthy. There is no competition in the market place as the little guy has to spend a significant portion of his time trying to stay compliant.

Do you really feel that a 73 thousand page tax code is a well oiled, working machine?

I'm open to simplifying and closing loopholes in the corporate tax code. I'm not in favor of cutting their taxes while doing it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The reason nearly half of Americans pay no taxes is because you can't get blood from a stone. The reason the upper percentiles pay so much is because they have so much of the money (And it continues to accumulate upwards). You can't pay taxes when your wages are stagnating compared to everyone else. If the rich want to see the lower percentiles pay more taxes, they'd have to pay them more. I think they'd rather keep their money.
It's also worth noting that this is the result of the Bush tax cuts and a progressive tax system. I fear for which one people would rather see modified.
Everyone still pays SS, Medicare, State Income Taxes, Local Taxes, Sales Taxes (though not every state), Property Tax (If you're "lucky"), Gas taxes, cigarette taxes (if they smoke).

But why are your wages stagnating compared to everyone else? Why is the money pooling at the top? I'll give you a hint - it has to do with the marriage of big business and government. Too Big to fail, for example. The government is choosing winners and losers and small and medium businesses stand no chance based solely on the value they add to society - which is exactly the idea behind capitalism.

So low taxes for "job creators" is bullshit and doesn't work? Because that's still a lot of rich people at the top.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Take the example of Caterpillar that was posted earlier in this thread. They are doing horrible things to their employees despite record profits. Where'd those profits come from? The majority from government and government contractors. Their revenue is all but garaunteed. We the people have no means of boycotting, voicing our displeasure, shopping around to competitors or otherwise voting with our dollars because the government has already picked them as a winner. The problem isn't Caterpillar, its the driving force of competition being largely removed from their business model allowing them to do whatever they damn well please with not a peep from the powers that put them in that position.

I'll concede that government interference precludes an easy solution but couldn't citizenry organize protests in DC to demand Caterpillar be dropped?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Really dude, this is the 3rd time that i've had to point out that my problem is not with taxes in this thread. Do i need to quote it at the beginning of every post?

Well, I apologize if that wasn't your focus, however with your early railing on the "dependency class" and how they paid no taxes, the subject was bound to be discussed. Maybe the real dependency class is corporate america? Maybe we should worry about what they're paying first?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

*ahem* Snow-i?
It matters because as far as I know, taxes were higher in the past. So I'm looking for some evidence that this is not the case any more.

I'm not sure the relevance? Are you trying to compare the economy now to the economy then? I'm sure they've been higher in the past but that does not mean that loosening the government's grips on our wallets wouldn't have a profound, positive effect.

I'm open to simplifying and closing loopholes in the corporate tax code. I'm not in favor of cutting their taxes while doing it.

Why not? Fairness doctrine or do you honestly think it would hurt the economy?

So low taxes for "job creators" is bullshit and doesn't work? Because that's still a lot of rich people at the top.

So you'd sacrifice a rising standard of living for everyone just to sock it to them? Who cares if there's rich people at the top? We need a solution for everyone and if we design our policies to punish those at the top whats the incentive to climb the latter?

I'll concede that government interference precludes an easy solution but couldn't citizenry organize protests in DC to demand Caterpillar be dropped?

We could, but the gov't and Caterpillar are in bed together. They have the money and the power and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it except take off from our lives and go protest. There are far more pressing issues that we face and both the government and Caterpillar know it. Its quite simply abusing their positions of power.

Well, I apologize if that wasn't your focus, however with your early railing on the "dependency class" and how they paid no taxes, the subject was bound to be discussed. Maybe the real dependency class is corporate america? Maybe we should worry about what they're paying first?

The only dependency class should be those serving in office. Somewhere along the way it flip flopped and we became beholden to them. Complacency is progresses worst enemy and why would you want to make progress when Uncle Sam pays your way without asking anything in return?

[Charles Martin]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'll define it as the 47% of the population paying absolutely 0 Federal income tax. They are dependent on the rest of us to pick up the tab yet reap the benefits provided thereby.
But hey, Free healthcare.

I knew this tired old myth would come up at some point. People who get their "news" from Faux Noise and talk radio ALWAYS get this wrong.

People who pay no Federal income tax do not equal people who pay no tax, or don't contribute their fair share.

They pay state tax (if they earn enough), sales tax, and all the other taxes everyone pays every day.

They are "guilty" of being too poor to have earned enough to pay Federal income tax over the personal exemption, those lucky duckies.. And yes, before you spew more misinformation, they pay Federal withholding on welfare if they are on welfare. Those are earnings, and they are taxed. Yep, they are living the high life, the "dependent class." Funny how you're so mad at them but don't seem to want to be one of 'em.

But don't take my word for it: educate yourself from this article from commie leftist rag Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/

Now, if you want to talk about "people" who are genuinely ducking their tax responsibility, let's talk Mitt Romney and corporate welfare.

[BadKosh]

So YOU think it's OK to punish the successful?

NOT having money is the punishment for being a stupid slacker.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by chas_m 

I knew this tired old myth would come up at some point. People who get their "news" from Faux Noise and talk radio ALWAYS get this wrong.

Ok, here we go

People who pay no Federal income tax do not equal people who pay no tax, or don't contribute their fair share.

No one ever said they don't pay any sort of taxes. The subject is the Federal Government and the leader of the Federal Government.

They pay state tax (if they earn enough), sales tax, and all the other taxes everyone pays every day.

Thats great, but we're talking about the Federal government, the Federal Budget, and the leader of the that Federal Government making statements. Just because someone pays state taxes does not somehow absolve them of responsibility to contribute to society as a whole. State taxes won't help the federal deficit.

They are "guilty" of being too poor to have earned enough to pay Federal income tax over the personal exemption, those lucky duckies.. And yes, before you spew more misinformation, they pay Federal withholding on welfare if they are on welfare. Those are earnings, and they are taxed. Yep, they are living the high life, the "dependent class." Funny how you're so mad at them but don't seem to want to be one of 'em.

For an NN staffer I'm surprised at your apparent lack of thoroughness in reading through my arguments. I am not railing against the lower classes, and have specifically stated otherwise several times in this thread. I can quote them for you?. I am railing against a leader who does not believe that those who dug themselves out of a bad situation did it themselves - the government did so for them.

But don't take my word for it: educate yourself from this article from commie leftist rag Forbes:

Classy

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/
Now, if you want to talk about "people" who are genuinely ducking their tax responsibility, let's talk Mitt Romney and corporate welfare.

Did you even read your article? It states that companies pay a payroll tax on their behalf

Thank you for that. Just goes to show those businesses.....You didn't build that and you're not really paying taxes


Lets try again to read through my argument? I know its easy to get emotional with these things - but I'm not arguing against poor people (whatever that means?). To suggest otherwise is dishonest. I'm suggesting a way out of this that two bad leaders in succession put us in (or at least failed to steer clear of).

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Did you even read your article? It states that companies pay a payroll tax on their behalf
Thank you for that. Just goes to show those businesses.....You didn't build that and you're not really paying taxes
Lets try again to read through my argument? I know its easy to get emotional with these things - but I'm not arguing against poor people (whatever that means?). To suggest otherwise is dishonest. I'm suggesting a way out of this that two bad leaders in succession put us in (or at least failed to steer clear of).

Companies pay a payroll tax on the employee's behalf
and then deducts that amount from the employee's paycheck.

So the employee ends up paying it. Duh!

http://taxes.about.com/od/payroll/qt/payroll_basics.htm

Employee's gross pay (pay rate times number of hours worked)
- Statutory payroll tax deductions
- Voluntary payroll deductions
= Net Pay.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not sure the relevance? Are you trying to compare the economy now to the economy then?

Well, I've not heard talk about how the economy interacts with taxes has changed, outside of offshoring profits and outsourcing jobs. How can I trust people that it will make things better when:

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm sure they've been higher in the past but that does not mean that loosening the government's grips on our wallets wouldn't have a profound, positive effect.

In the near-term, the last 10 years have not been positive in regards to the stimulating effects of cutting taxes on job creation or government revenue.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Why not? Fairness doctrine or do you honestly think it would hurt the economy?

I honestly think it's a ploy to cut taxes, the results be damned. I'm sure they will cut taxes by whatever % and use very conservative figures for forecasting its negative impact, then eliminate some loopholes and liberally forecast their impact. I'm fine with doing both, but you show me how much closing those loopholes will increase revenue first (by implementing them) before you cut taxes. I've seen how this country works. We were all given tax cuts in 2001 because of how great the economy was and because government revenue was so high and now its all scare tactics and class warfare about letting them expire (even though they're damn near historically low).

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So you'd sacrifice a rising standard of living for everyone just to sock it to them? Who cares if there's rich people at the top? We need a solution for everyone and if we design our policies to punish those at the top whats the incentive to climb the latter?

This is where I find the conversation devolves into hyperbole. What constitutes "socking it to them"? Why are taxes punishment and not the cost of being born, raised, and living in a great 1st world country? Why didn't the amazingly aggressive upper tax rates of yesterdecades stop people from climbing the ladder? How does taxing decrease standard of living (especially if we use it fund things like universal healthcare?) What is this supposed solution for everyone?

You also side-stepped the question: Why haven't low taxes for job creators spurred job creation? Why will it work now?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The only dependency class should be those serving in office. Somewhere along the way it flip flopped and we became beholden to them. Complacency is progresses worst enemy and why would you want to make progress when Uncle Sam pays your way without asking anything in return?

And how much of this complacency is motivated by the increasing economic inequality, stagnating wages, and decreased economic mobility?

What about the corporate dependency class I spoke of? Why not worry about them first? Perhaps we could avoid "socking it to [the rich]" by closing that avenue of government spending and revenue loss?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well, I've not heard talk about how the economy interacts with taxes has changed, outside of offshoring profits and outsourcing jobs. How can I trust people that it will make things better when:
In the near-term, the last 10 years have not been positive in regards to the stimulating effects of cutting taxes on job creation or government revenue.

Id tend to agree. But we haven't really cut taxes have we? Not letting tax cuts expire is touted as a tax cut in itself. Simply keeping things the same as they are with regards to tax rates will not have any impact on the economy except for "continuing the trend." More in a second.

I honestly think it's a ploy to cut taxes, the results be damned. I'm sure they will cut taxes by whatever % and use very conservative figures for forecasting its negative impact, then eliminate some loopholes and liberally forecast their impact. I'm fine with doing both, but you show me how much closing those loopholes will increase revenue first (by implementing them) before you cut taxes. I've seen how this country works. We were all given tax cuts in 2001 because of how great the economy was and because government revenue was so high and now its all scare tactics and class warfare about letting them expire (even though they're damn near historically low).

As Hyteckit beautifully pointed out, payroll taxes are not included in the tax figures but are included when a company is budgeting new employees.

This is where I find the conversation devolves into hyperbole. What constitutes "socking it to them"? Why are taxes punishment and not the cost of being born, raisd, and living in a great 1st world country? Why didn't the amazingly aggressive upper tax rates of yesterdecades stop people from climbing the ladder? How does taxing decrease standard of living (especially if we use it fund things like universal healthcare?) What is this supposed solution for everyone?

But we are not using the taxes already collected wisely. We are removing the incentive to add value to our economy and are seeing the effects of that. When did the cost of being born, raised, and living in a great 1st world country shift from adding to wealth via hard work and innovation to simply paying a portion of your earning to the single biggest center of waste, fraud and abuse on the planet?

You also side-stepped the question: Why haven't low taxes for job creators spurred job creation? Why will it work now?

Honestly? The taxes are not low enough to really let loose the entrepreneurial exceptionalism that this country is capable of - especially from those who want more than their current lifestyle affords.

And how much of this complacency is motivated by the increasing economic inequality, stagnating wages, and decreased economic mobility?
What about the corporate dependency class I spoke of? Why not worry about them first? Perhaps we could avoid "socking it to [the rich]" by closing that avenue of government spending and revenue loss?

I'm with you, but it would be much easier to do by defunding the fatcats in washington who are playing with our billions. Hit them where it hurts - the wallet. The majority of those in office now view our hard earned money as monopoly money. Millions, billions, trillions...they do not give a shit. Not only can we remove the stranglehold on small and medium businesses by reducing their tax liabilities but we can also force washington to be smarter with our money. The whole point of this thread is that Obama views tax dollars as originating from the goverment and failing to recognize who not only paid for government services but that the majority of successful businesses operated in spite of the governments intervention, not because of it.

Sure, if tax dollars were spent wisely what you're saying sounds great on paper. In practice, an extremely small percentage of our money goes towards roads, cleanup, government loans etc etc. You and I both know that any increase in that tax liability will not go towards climbing out of this mess but instead pushing us further down the road.

Case and Point? Solyndra. Terrible investment by the government that was politically motivated. Oh, its only 535 million.

Do you know how many jobs could be created by small and medium businesses with 535 million dollars back in their pockets? And this represents just a fraction of a fraction of the government's irresponsible use of our tax dollars. You could argue that this money would largely stay in the hands of bigger businesses that will push the little guy out, but why not end or reduce the marriage between big gov't and big business that forces the smaller players out? Caterpillar is a great example of what I'm talking about. Bloated government contracts line the pockets where the account managers on both sides have little incentive to shop for the best price/practices. Its a win/win for government and big business and lose/lose for the rest of us and the employees of Caterpillar.

EDIT: I should add that most of the money in the stimulus packages goes towards such government contracts. Its a misuse of our funding and lacks the cost cutting oversight that any business owner would have if it were their money on the line. When you take the possibility of failure off the table (such as with government contractors and government oversight of funding) people become very sloppy very quickly. They also begin to look for ways to line their own pockets as "whats the worse that could happen?"

[Dork.]

Happy Birthday, Barry!



http://wonkette.com/480073/it-is-your-birthday-barack-obama

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Didn't congress help give them this power? I didn't fail to make connection, but I did overlook it. Is it that you see the availability of the power as the problem? Because I see the people we're giving the power to exert it to as the issue.

True, there is the ol' bait and switch problem, but there's more. You can grow the Executive by growing your number of czars and aides that help draft legislation outside Congressional purview. Your ilk can hold cloture votes on non-filibusters to force votes on judicial nominees you don't want Congress to hear about for example. You can leak selected bits of classified intel to attempt shaping the views of the public or as President you can unilaterally determine which laws of the land you'll uphold and which ones you won't in spite of the oath you took upon entering office. That's what I mean by abusing power. Yes, some semblance of that power has been granted by the system and by us, but I maintain it is being abused.

How can you trust him? 100% honest question. How can you believe he will stick to the values he's espousing now?

One can't know for sure, but there is a vocal entity at play among the Republican constituency that is passionate about its anti-establishment progress throughout the country. This is the entity that would help him get the office and could hurt him substantially for not living up to his professed platform; generally a populace platform.

I don't know if it still holds, but I believe I heard in previous elections that past governance a better indicator of Presidential policy than campaign platform. But, I suppose you may be in the same position I am in – even if he was Governor Romney (RINO), you would vote for him over Obama, correct?

Not so sure about that. As a Republican governor of a primarily liberal state, he had to move considerably to the left on many issues including abortion and gun control in order to move the ball in a direction he may have deemed "forward". If he were actively defending those policy-positions and not using the narrative I just provided, I would be writing in Oscar the Grouch on the ballot. On the national stage however, with a conservative base and ample conservative support, he won't have to move as far to the left while Obama would essentially go unchecked in a second term with no threat of losing office. i.e. While Romney may show signs of left-leaning, Obama shows signs of left-leaping.

Due to the length of the conversation I'm unclear on what context I said Obama is more reserved.
One interesting aspect about the "I know what he wants to do because I've listened to him" that I thought would be jumped on politically is his reversal on gay marriage. I believe he campaigned in '08 claiming he couldn't endorse it due to religion, yet he's done the 180º. This seems ripe for "just as liberal as we suspected!" ads.
And where is moderate? Where is the middle?

Well, that's actually a very good question. Just about every survey I've taken has me almost right down the middle, slightly to the right. Obama's reversal on gay marriage was easy. He was actually documented as in support of gay marriage vowing to "fight any proposals against it" in the late 90's and then he ran for Senator where he flipped and continued as a Presidential candidate. Obama is now trying to solidify his base. So... he was for it, then against it, and now for it again. The one thing I've learned about this President is that just about everything he does is politically motivated. Enter the decision to unilaterally not uphold immigration law. Why? It was never important to him prior, but it would help solidify the Latino vote. Or the recent Executive Order quietly signed into existence that grants lop-sided treatment of public school students based on skin color and sets up several new bureaucracies at the Federal level who will work in tandem with the Dept of Education. Why? Recent, heightened calls by black leadership that he's done abysmally little for the black community. It's one of the only, truly transparent things about this Administration and you can take money to the bank on him almost every time.

That can not be argued. The economy has not recovered well under Obama. I don't have the acumen to judge why and I must admit to myself that if this was George Bush in office, any feeling of leniency or sympathy I might have for the situation he inherited would likely be mitigated.

One of the reasons I appreciate your posting; introspect. Very fair.

What I (think) I know is that businesses have been making very good profits, yet are slow to hire. The workforce has been partly shrunk by eliminated government jobs. And that Obama has not been successful in getting his stimulus goals passed. That allows me to entertain doubt.
What I have seen from Romney hasn't been encouraging. I don't recall his jobs plan, but I do know that a major platform of his economic plan is tax cuts. I don't understand why this is supposed to work. We had generous tax cuts through-out the Bush administration and the economy chugged along in uninspiring fashion and wages stagnated. What new angle is being brought to the table here?

I believe this narrative is essentially; "the government does not have enough money therefore, people are not taxed enough." I disagree with the premise. I believe we are taxed enough, all of us. Money is mobile. If you discourage it here, it will move elsewhere. We use taxes to curb "sins" like tobacco and alcohol, but all of a sudden we talk money and the entire paradigm shifts somehow.

In spite of a recession in 2000, 9-11, noteworthy market scandals, Katrina, and two expensive wars, the Federal budget deficit dropped from $412 billion in 2004 to $162 billion in 2007. That's a 60% decline in the deficit over three years. Not only were more jobs lost after the 9-11 attacks in 2001 than in the 2008 market crash, many more jobs were created under the Bush administration with an average employment growth rate of 2.5% from 2000 to 2007 and maintained an average unemployment rate of 5.2%. Not only was there strong GDP growth, the economy saw the greatest productivity growth in four decades. The problem? Spending. Bush's last two years in office and his successor doubling-down on the failed stimulus strategy. Again, the government does not need more money, it needs to spend less money. Ending the Bush tax cuts will generate enough to manage current spending rates for approximately 10 days. Is that really what all the hullabaloo is about, keeping our system going a few more days? In fact, you can tax "the rich" at 100% and it would get buried in the interest on our debt alone. When Obama agreed to maintain the Bush tax cuts, he claimed it was important to maintain them to get the economy back on its feet. Well, the economy is not back on its feet yet his narrative has done a 180.

Then there is stimulus and the stimulus passed. The problem is, A) You cannot have a perpetual "shovel-ready" job. By nature, they only take a couple of years to complete... and then those people are sent back to the unemployment line. You cannot just keep passing more stimulus to keep people employed. B) Waste -- line 10 people up with the one in need of water as the 10th in line. Pour water into the first person's cupped hands and have them pour their contents into the next person's hands and so on. By the time you get to the 10th person, there is no water left. What to do, pour more water in? No, fix the system before you ask for another drop. We all get tax cuts under the Bush plan, the fact that those over a certain income also get savings is not reason enough to oppose them, but somehow that's the only argument I'm hearing against them. Which is why folks are decrying "classism".

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So YOU think it's OK to punish the successful?

Tax fairness is not punishment. The idle rich aren't pulling their weight; they pay half the tax rate of the working rich.

NOT having money is the punishment for being a stupid slacker.

That's pretty much the campaign slogan of the entire Republican Party, isn't it? Poor? You deserve it!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

That can not be argued. The economy has not recovered well under Obama. I don't have the acumen to judge why and I must admit to myself that if this was George Bush in office, any feeling of leniency or sympathy I might have for the situation he inherited would likely be mitigated.

If I were in the Obama campaign, this would be the last issue I'd work about. The campaign ads write themselves:

President Obama tried to work with House Republicans on bills to improve the economy.

The Republicans said no.

The Republican House wasted their entire two years repealing the Afforable Care Act.

33 times they voted to repeal the ACA. 33 times!

They spent no time working on jobs, the economy, streamlining government, or eliminating tax loopholes.

They should run an ad like that in every district where a Republican voted dozens of times to repeal ACA, with the exact number in the ad.

This election will be a cakewalk for Obama.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Tax fairness is not punishment. The idle rich aren't pulling their weight; they pay half the tax rate of the working rich.
That's pretty much the campaign slogan of the entire Republican Party, isn't it? Poor? You deserve it!

And for some reason they clean up in rural populations where there is generally considerably less wealth (and less education), go figure!