Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=Mattyk72;492030]I thought it was funny the Republicans didn't do their homework on good old Joe before making him the poster child of the last debate.[/quote]
Joe himself doesn't matter, his point does.....But why did it take the GOP this long to make the argument. Obama hasn't hidden the fact he'll raise taxes on those making over $ 250K. McCain and his spin doctors should've been hammering the "wealth redistribution" angle since before the first debate.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;492276]There's the problem, bloated government programs. They take on a life of their own. Many need to be cut back.[/quote]

Reagan couldn't do it in '81. W and co most certainly didn't do it, even with a repub congress. Clinton managed to cut a fair bit off Federal welfare. But neither party has shown the stomach for real change. I'm fine with gov't playing a role, but it must be done with some intelligence. And some restraint! The issue here is that the repubs had there shot--what did it get us? Smaller gov't? Better economy? Improved health care? Improved education? Talk is cheap. Maybe Obama won't be able to do anything. But he's worth a shot because the other side messed up.

[quote]This is a very debatable point many economists disagree with. Also, we've always had some form of progressive taxation since the inception on the income tax. But at what point is the "progression" too much? I would argue when the top 1% of income earners are paying 34% of the Federal tax burden and the next 2-10% are paying the next 33% than it's too much. The bottom 50% are only paying a total of 3% of the tax burden.[/quote]

Ah, the dismal science. The historical analysis I saw recently suggested otherwise, but no doubt it's debatable, as is everything in economics. Why do you think 34/33 is too much? What is the right amount? In any event, if we are going to pay for the programs we want, we need to tax. The bottom 50% has experienced stagnating and sinking wages in relation to inflation. Plus, they can least afford to pay, because the loss of income directly effects basic stuff like mortgage payments, health care, food, gas, etc. So raise the rate to 39 (back to the Clinton number). And if I'm right about the debatable economic point (the post war boom? the Clinton years?), it's better overall. I'm not sure how McCain's further ballooning of the debt is going to help--we can only borrow so much from China.


[quote]Why? What government programs or government advantages have they received? What government services do they use more than anyone else? Answer: probably none. (I'm not talking the top 1%, I can't speak to how they got where they are, but the 2-10% have mostly gotten there by their own hard work and financial risk taking.)[/quote]

You are taking a too narrow view of the benefits. It's not simply a matter of direct gov't assistance (protectionism and corporate welfare--but that's for another post), it's a matter of the benefits of living in a free and open society like this one. That it exists and allowed them the opportunity to succeed as much as they have. The top 10% have benefited from that. So they can reasonably be asked to bear a greater share of the load of supporting this system. Isn't this the rationale for progressive taxation? If you are ok with progressive taxation in general, we're only disagreeing about the numbers here. I think 39 (i.e. back to Clinton's numbers) makes sense.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;492279]Joe himself doesn't matter, his point does.....But why did it take the GOP this long to make the argument. Obama hasn't hidden the fact he'll raise taxes on those making over $ 250K. McCain and his spin doctors should've been hammering the "wealth redistribution" angle since before the first debate.[/quote]

My conservative father-in-law has been making this point for months.

I think the McCain folks recognize that it's not going to play in hard-hit economic areas. Plus, it was Bush's line, so it's been a tad discredited. What is McCain's positive policy here? Is it just Bush, or is it something different? If it's just Bush, it's electoral poison. If it's something different, how is it different in principle from Obama? My feeling is McCain's recent economic stuff looks more socialist than Obama's. That's why the right wasn't into his "buy and re-negotiate the bad mortgages" thing. And I agree with them on this one!

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=JWsleep;492303]Reagan couldn't do it in '81. W and co most certainly didn't do it, even with a repub congress. Clinton managed to cut a fair bit off Federal welfare. But neither party has shown the stomach for real change. I'm fine with gov't playing a role, but it must be done with some intelligence. And some restraint! The issue here is that the repubs had there shot--what did it get us? Smaller gov't? Better economy? Improved health care? Improved education? Talk is cheap. Maybe Obama won't be able to do anything. But he's worth a shot because the other side messed up. [/quote] Obama has proposed at least several hundred billion in new programs and is promising a tax increase already. My money is on government will expand greatly and taxes rise to levels above the Clinton years if Obama wins and the dems gain a supermajority. Gov't expansion and tax increase happened both times before when the dems had it.

[quote]Why do you think 34/33 is too much? What is the right amount? In any event, if we are going to pay for the programs we want, we need to tax. The bottom 50% has experienced stagnating and sinking wages in relation to inflation. Plus, they can least afford to pay, because the loss of income directly effects basic stuff like mortgage payments, health care, food, gas, etc. So raise the rate to 39 (back to the Clinton number). And if I'm right about the debatable economic point (the post war boom? the Clinton years?), it's better overall. I'm not sure how McCain's further ballooning of the debt is going to help--we can only borrow so much from China.[/quote]I think the top 10% of the wage earners paying 2/3 of the taxes in the country is very unfair. The top 10% can't out vote the other 90% so there's no incentive to cut any programs, or increase taxes on a larger section of the population, just keep taxing the "rich". When the bottom 90% feel no pain, or even get tax cuts, where is the incentive to control gov't? BTW $ 250K / yr. isn't rich, it's upper middle class, but not rich.

Look at it this way; you work a full-time job as an attorney, dentist, sales professional or you own a couple of small stores or restaurants. You job it 60 hours + per week to hopefully over time become independently wealthy. You live below your means and make smart financial decsions. You take your income from $ 250K to $ 350K with no help from anyone or the government, just hard work and the investments you made in your own education or financial risks you took. So of the $ 100K over $ 250K you made, you keep only $ 61K of, not to mention state and local taxes, at the end of the day you've busted your hind quarters and only take home about $ 55K. Is that fair for the Fed to take more than most people earn in a year in taxes on just the $ 100K to support people who haven't made the sacrifices you do?

[quote]You are taking a too narrow view of the benefits. It's not simply a matter of direct gov't assistance (protectionism and corporate welfare--but that's for another post), it's a matter of the benefits of living in a free and open society like this one. That it exists and allowed them the opportunity to succeed as much as they have. The top 10% have benefited from that. So they can reasonably be asked to bear a greater share of the load of supporting this system. Isn't this the rationale for progressive taxation? If you are ok with progressive taxation in general, we're only disagreeing about the numbers here. I think 39 (i.e. back to Clinton's numbers) makes sense.[/quote]I'm not talking about CEOs who are making mega-bucks here. Those guys do have corporate lobbyists and get benfits for themselves and the corporations they work for from folks in the government, on both sides of the aisle.

I'm talking about the guys/gals I mentioned in the paragraph above. What additional benefit of a "free & open society" do they get that the other 90% of wage earners don't get? It is not reasonable based on that to, not ASK but DEMAND, they pay higher and higher percentages of their income. The IRS doesn't "ask" for your tax payment. I understand progressive taxation is necessary, but it's too high at 35% and certainly is at 39%.

The only way to control government expansion is to slow down the funding and force cuts in programs and more frugal expenditures of OUR money.

Pretty scary stuff here. We've got to put the brakes on spending and revamp SS, Medicare, Medicaid now.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt]United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

Again, I agree that we should cut bloated gov't spending. But I don't think McCain will be able to do anything serious--so we're just going to get a continuation of the Bush debt spending. Is that good policy? My guess is Obama will end up raising middle class taxes at some point. And I am not against that, so long as it's part of balancing the budget.

And I'm still not sure where you'd set the tax rates if we drop them across the board. If you want to keep defense strong, and you want to pay even for a "revamped" SS, medicare, etc. the monies have to come from somewhere. Past progressive tax rates have been much higher on the top tier, and the economy did well (See the Eisenhower years, e.g.). 39 is not too much of a burden. And there ought to be ways to deduct for charitable contributions--rather than sending your money to the gov't, send it to the charity of your choice. That would help the nation as well.

I reiterate that I think the issue of fair taxation policy if the #1 divide between libs and conservatives. Doubt we'll ever agree, but it sure beats talking about all the red herring stuff in this campaign!

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=JWsleep;492600][B]it sure beats talking about all the red herring stuff in this campaign![/B][/quote]
We definitely agree here. :food-smil

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=JWsleep;492600]Again, I agree that we should cut bloated gov't spending. But I don't think McCain will be able to do anything serious--so we're just going to get a continuation of the Bush debt spending. Is that good policy? My guess is Obama will end up raising middle class taxes at some point. And I am not against that, so long as it's part of balancing the budget.

And I'm still not sure where you'd set the tax rates if we drop them across the board. If you want to keep defense strong, and you want to pay even for a "revamped" SS, medicare, etc. the monies have to come from somewhere. Past progressive tax rates have been much higher on the top tier, and the economy did well (See the Eisenhower years, e.g.). 39 is not too much of a burden. And there ought to be ways to deduct for charitable contributions--rather than sending your money to the gov't, send it to the charity of your choice. That would help the nation as well.

I reiterate that I think the issue of fair taxation policy if the #1 divide between libs and conservatives. Doubt we'll ever agree, but it sure beats talking about all the red herring stuff in this campaign![/quote]
Well if you think 39% taxation is not all that high I guess your sending the goverment a check each year so your paying 39%.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

with the massive deficit we now face, any ideas on how to start paying on it? or is now the republican way to spend, spend, and spend some more, and let our grand-kids worry about it? lets face facts. no matter who gets into office, out taxes are going up. that's just a fact. i guess the real debate is who will raise them more

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=dmek25;492683]with the massive deficit we now face, any ideas on how to start paying on it? or is now the republican way to spend, spend, and spend some more, and let our grand-kids worry about it? lets face facts. no matter who gets into office, out taxes are going up. that's just a fact. i guess the real debate is who will raise them more[/quote]

So I guess your saying Obama's economic plan is not very good and he is lying to 95% of Americans or is he planning on lowering our taxes then turning around and raising them.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

Well federal tax revenue is at a all time high.
[url]http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/PDF/R2.pdf[/url]

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=firstdown;492696]So I guess your saying Obama's economic plan is not very good and he is lying to 95% of Americans or is he planning on lowering our taxes then turning around and raising them.[/quote]

Dude neither of the candidates are lying, their plans have to first be approved by Congress. I hope Congress realizes that huge tax cuts from either party won't help. I am expecting a moderate raise in taxes.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=firstdown;492669]Well if you think 39% taxation is not all that high I guess your sending the goverment a check each year so your paying 39%.[/quote]

If I made over 250,000 I would, as part of a well-worked out economic policy. Given that we will all be paying taxes, my view is that those with more income can afford to bear a higher percentage of the tax burden, for the reasons I gave above.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=firstdown;492698]Well federal tax revenue is at a all time high.
[url]http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/PDF/R2.pdf[/url][/quote]

Not sure what we're supposed to take from this--hasn't the population also increased dramatically during that time as well?

For the record, I am fully in favor of cutting bloated federal programs.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=JWsleep;492708]If I made over 250,000 I would, as part of a well-worked out economic policy. Given that we will all be paying taxes, my view is that those with more income can afford to bear a higher percentage of the tax burden, for the reasons I gave above.[/quote]
They are. I find it interesting you think its OK for them to work 4 months just to pay taxes but admit its not for you. I'm not saying they should not pay taxes but find it strang how people can sit back and say rais their taxes but no not mine.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

lets face facts first. the old stand by of trickle down economics no longer works. the reason? corporate greed. it used to be the guys running these companies worked their way up the ladder. now, a degree will get you a high paying management job. and once you fail at that, you will collect your severance, and move on to the next company. there is no loyalty, and no drive to have your company succeed. all the big money is negotiated at the time you sign on. if you look at all the major C.E.O's, they just keep retreading them. kind of like sports coaches

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

Did trickle down ever work at anything other than making the gap between the rich and poor even greater?

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

I think no one can dispute that people in general are better off since the 80's, but the rising tide did NOT lift all boats equally. To me that is the concern with trickle-down.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=JWsleep;492127]I can, Charlie Brown. Lights, please...

Here's one line of thought:

The overall health of the economy suffers when we have these huge deficits and a ballooning national debt. People are unwilling to cut the defense budget, Social Security, highway funds, head start, homeland security, etc. So we need more revenue. Claim: the middle class is the engine of the economy, so don't tax them--cut their taxes. The poor have no money to tax. So tax the rich. They can most afford to pay (yes, they're angry about it, but they won't lose their homes, healthcare, etc.). Further, doing this in the past has been good for the economy--progressive taxation is better economically then trickledown economics. So it's the right thing to do.

Is it fair to tax one group of citizens more than another? (This, I think, is among the most important differences between conservatives and liberals.) My feeling: yes, if it can be shown that the overall economy gets better, and so a rising tide lifts all boats, even the big rich yachts. Also, it may be that the rich should give something back to help the overall health of the nation where they've done so well (and, BTW, I'd certainly make charitable donations tax deductible up the wazoo).

Worry: excessive taxation is a drag on investment and undermines the motivational energies of the economy. That seems a good worry. Solution: find the progressive tax polices that have the least negative effect on these things. There are lots of ways to do this, but none of them fit in a message board post or a campaign add. So we need leaders who are smart enough to find the right fit here. I thought Clinton's team wasn't bad. I think Obama is more of this stripe than his opponents (and many of his friends) think. I think McCain is open to this (or he was), but since running to the right, he may not be able to get back to this reasonable sort of view. Hence, I prefer Obama on this issue.

If you're against ANY taxation, or any progressive taxation, neither of these candidates is for you. See Bob Barr, maybe?[/quote]

Okay, there's a lot of points here and Slingin Sammy and firstdown have already responded to many of them... And yes, I'm voting for Bob Barr because John McCain is equally as bad for this economy as Barack Obama is. All of this massive spending on foreign misadventures on top of the ballooning federal budget and national debt must be stopped ASAP.

Let me just say up front that I favor supply side economics -- you and others refer it to as "trickle down".

Have you ever heard the statistic that says something like 7 out of 10 new businesses fail? And that around five of those 7 fail immediately? The point here is that most people don't understand the risk that is involved with starting a new business. Most people don't understand, because most people don't go through with the trouble of starting a business, mainly out of fear. Fear of the risk that goes with it and the money they stand to lose. So the odds are stacked against the people who do take the risk at the outset.

The problem with progressive taxation is that it in effect punishes those who have already passed the incredible hurdle of starting a business and maintaining it to the point that it is profitable. When you stick it to the risk-takers through higher taxation, for no other reason than they have been able to collect more wealth than others who do not take such risks, it inhibits growth, it reduces the incentive for starting new businesses, it takes money away from businesses who might expand, make more capital investments, and hire more employees.

You say that the middle class are the "engine of the economy". Fine. But they are only the engine because businesses, large and small, are there to employ them. If we take your economic philosophy to its logical conclusion, then not only are corporations there to employ people, but the government should act to take money away from the business owners and give it to the workers, i.e. the middle class. Would you agree that if taken too far, that particular tax policy could drive businesses [I]out of business[/I]? What would happen if the tax structure got so out of hand that the wealthy business owners said that it was no longer worth it? That there's no reason to continue doing business because the government is taking more of their money and giving it to people who didn't earn it? What if they just walk away?

One more thing about "giving back". I've never liked that expression. It implies that the rich have taken something that doesn't belong to them. That they should "give it back", I suppose through higher taxation. What exactly, have they taken? And if they have achieved their riches through starting a successful business, then the middle class benefits because they have a job thanks to the success of their wealthy employers.

I and other supply siders aren't against all forms of taxation. Obviously we have to maintain the basic functions of government, like police, fire, national defense, that sort of thing. The issue is that the money is taken from high earners by politicians who in turn promise that money to people who didn't earn it in exchange for votes. Vote me in, and I'll make sure the tax structure stays the way it is -- and since there are way more low and middle income voters than high income voters, that politician is sitting pretty.

The only fair way to collect taxes is to get the same amount from everybody. Everybody pays the same percentage. Period. That's the very definition of fairness. Anything else pits class against class, stifles economic growth and if we get right down to it -- it's thievery. Legalized thievery. Taking money from one person simply because he has more of it, and giving it to someone who doesn't have as much.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=Mattyk72;492749]Did trickle down ever work at anything other than making the gap between the rich and poor even greater?[/quote]

[quote=hooskins]I think no one can dispute that people in general are better off since the 80's, but the rising tide did NOT lift all boats equally. To me that is the concern with trickle-down.[/quote]

"Trickle down" economics was never meant to make everyone rich. It's a basic premise which says that government should get out of the way of people who are trying to make life better for themselves.

Rich people don't hide their money in mayonnaise jars and bury it in their back yard. They save it, which enables banks to make loans; they invest it, which provides capital to companies who in turn, use it to expand and hire more of the low and middle class; or they spend it; and yes they buy expensive things like yachts, million dollar homes, fancy cars and luxurious vacations. That, I believe is what makes the low and middle class so angry. But even there, the people who build, market, and sell yachts, million dollar homes, and fancy cars benefit [U]because they have a job![/U]

When you try to nail wealthy people to the wall, sooner or later it will affect the low and middle class. When you stop punishing the wealthy and let them succeed, it ultimately benefits the low and middle class.

That's the essence of 'trickle down' economics.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=Beemnseven;492773]Okay, there's a lot of points here and Slingin Sammy and firstdown have already responded to many of them... And yes, I'm voting for Bob Barr because John McCain is equally as bad for this economy as Barack Obama is. All of this massive spending on foreign misadventures on top of the ballooning federal budget and national debt must be stopped ASAP.

Let me just say up front that I favor supply side economics -- you and others refer it to as "trickle down".

Have you ever heard the statistic that says something like 7 out of 10 new businesses fail? And that around five of those 7 fail immediately? The point here is that most people don't understand the risk that is involved with starting a new business. Most people don't understand, because most people don't go through with the trouble of starting a business, mainly out of fear. Fear of the risk that goes with it and the money they stand to lose. So the odds are stacked against the people who do take the risk at the outset.

The problem with progressive taxation is that it in effect punishes those who have already passed the incredible hurdle of starting a business and maintaining it to the point that it is profitable. When you stick it to the risk-takers through higher taxation, for no other reason than they have been able to collect more wealth than others who do not take such risks, it inhibits growth, it reduces the incentive for starting new businesses, it takes money away from businesses who might expand, make more capital investments, and hire more employees.

You say that the middle class are the "engine of the economy". Fine. But they are only the engine because businesses, large and small, are there to employ them. If we take your economic philosophy to its logical conclusion, then not only are corporations there to employ people, but the government should act to take money away from the business owners and give it to the workers, i.e. the middle class. Would you agree that if taken too far, that particular tax policy could drive businesses [I]out of business[/I]? What would happen if the tax structure got so out of hand that the wealthy business owners said that it was no longer worth it? That there's no reason to continue doing business because the government is taking more of their money and giving it to people who didn't earn it? What if they just walk away?

One more thing about "giving back". I've never liked that expression. It implies that the rich have taken something that doesn't belong to them. That they should "give it back", I suppose through higher taxation. What exactly, have they taken? And if they have achieved their riches through starting a successful business, then the middle class benefits because they have a job thanks to the success of their wealthy employers.

I and other supply siders aren't against all forms of taxation. Obviously we have to maintain the basic functions of government, like police, fire, national defense, that sort of thing. The issue is that the money is taken from high earners by politicians who in turn promise that money to people who didn't earn it in exchange for votes. Vote me in, and I'll make sure the tax structure stays the way it is -- and since there are way more low and middle income voters than high income voters, that politician is sitting pretty.

The only fair way to collect taxes is to get the same amount from everybody. Everybody pays the same percentage. Period. That's the very definition of fairness. Anything else pits class against class, stifles economic growth and if we get right down to it -- it's thievery. Legalized thievery. Taking money from one person simply because he has more of it, and giving it to someone who doesn't have as much.[/quote]

SORRY this is no place for reason, logic, and fact. That won't work here!
I would like to add; is anyone against cutting the Fed? Would you rather cut the Fed, or raise taxes to aid our Govt. in the further "fleecing" of the American people?
I personally, need less Govt. rather than more. Does anyone need more Govt?

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

With all the bailouts going on looks like we're getting more gov't involvement whether we like it or not.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=Mattyk72;492791]With all the bailouts going on looks like we're getting more gov't involvement whether we like it or not.[/quote]
If the bailouts are properly managed it should be a break even or win for the U.S. taxpayer. But we are talking about government managing the process so a positive outcome is unlikely.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=dmek25;492683]with the massive deficit we now face, any ideas on how to start paying on it? or is now the republican way to spend, spend, and spend some more, and let our grand-kids worry about it? lets face facts. no matter who gets into office, out taxes are going up. that's just a fact. i guess the real debate is who will raise them more[/quote]
Keep in mind the Congress is controlled by Dems and they're as much to blame as the Bush admin for the last few years of spending recklessness.

How about we freeze spending at current levels, pass a balanced budget ammendment, review and cut unnecessary/wasteful government programs, pass some sort of privitazation of a portion of SS, raise the age for maximum SS benefits for those under 45 up to 75 or whatever the curent life expectancy is. Any surplus goes to paying down the national debt. Interest on the national debt is 8.5% of our national budget.

SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and Unemployment are over 50% of the budget. These programs have to brought under control now or we're looking at MASSIVE tax increases by 2030. I'm sure this isn't what FDR intended when these programs were put in place.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png"]Image:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;492815]Keep in mind the Congress is controlled by Dems and they're as much to blame as the Bush admin for the last few years of spending recklessness.

How about we freeze spending at current levels, pass a balanced budget ammendment, review and cut unnecessary/wasteful government programs, [B]pass some sort of privitazation of a portion of SS[/B], raise the age for maximum SS benefits for those under 45 up to 75 or whatever the curent life expectancy is. Any surplus goes to paying down the national debt. Interest on the national debt is 8.5% of our national budget.

SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and Unemployment are over 50% of the budget. These programs have to brought under control now or we're looking at MASSIVE tax increases by 2030. I'm sure this isn't what FDR intended when these programs were put in place.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png"]Image:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL][/quote]

That was one of the very few things Bush did that I liked. Unfortunately, it went nowhere. That's because Matty unfortunately is right -- we are going to get more government and apparently the people want it. If we really wanted less gov't then the people would have loudly supported Bush's attempt to privatize a portion of SS.

One more large item in your list of spending cuts -- how about we stop forking over $10 billion a month for Iraq?

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=Beemnseven;492859]That was one of the very few things Bush did that I liked. Unfortunately, it went nowhere. That's because Matty unfortunately is right -- we are going to get more government and apparently the people want it. If we really wanted less gov't then the people would have loudly supported Bush's attempt to privatize a portion of SS.

One more large item in your list of spending cuts -- how about we stop forking over $10 billion a month for Iraq?[/quote]IMO we should've taken a more Reagan-esque approach, subvert Saddam with special ops and fund rebels/Kurds, but we had to do something. Saddam was intent on rebuilding his nuclear program and US forces found enough Sarin there to kill over 500K people. Not to mention him thumbing his nose at numerous UN Resolutions. Although the Bush Admin was certainly the catalyst here, there was heavy bi-partisan support for going into Iraq. The Bush Admin certainly did not act unilaterally internally or externally in Iraq. Another modification I would've made would be Iraq funding more of its own reconstruction rather than us footing the bill.

Hindsight is 20/20 though, and we are where we are. We MUST finish the job and stabilize Iraq or we'll be looking at a far worse situation 10-15 years from now if we walk away with the job 60-70% done.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=firstdown;492732]They are. I find it interesting you think its OK for them to work 4 months just to pay taxes but admit its not for you. I'm not saying they should not pay taxes but find it strang how people can sit back and say rais their taxes but no not mine.[/quote]

Actually, I'm one of those weirdos who's ok with them raising my taxes now, if it's part of a good program.

Look, either my argument is a good one or it isn't. I claim that the rich can bear the burden of a higher tax rate better than the middle class or the poor. Further, I claimed that effective progressive taxation is better for the economy than the trickle-down alternative. Finally, I claimed that the rich have benefited more from living in this society--its infrastructure, its institutions, its government, etc.--so it's reasonable to ask them to pay more. If this argument works, it works even if I'm rich.

For the record, I learned to think this way from my grandfather, a tax lawyer and law professor. He was rich and happily paid higher taxes. He liked Justice Brandise's dicutm: with my taxes I buy civilization.

No one but my grandfather, as far as I know, likes paying taxes. But we can see that it might be a necessary thing to do, even if we don't like it. The alternative is worse, or so I claim.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

I'm not against paying more either if it's for the better good of society in general.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

When Goverment can cut its waistful spending and our tax dollars are put to good use I would only then give a tax increase consideration. The problem is if they did that we would not have a need for a tax increase.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=firstdown;492896]When Goverment can cut its waistful spending and our tax dollars are put to good use I would only then give a tax increase consideration. The problem is if they did that we would not have a need for a tax increase.[/quote]

Exactly
The most fundamental element in quality leadership is the ability to "lead by example". As stated, when that happens, I could take an increase more seriously. Until that time........Washington is WAY fat....with your $$$$$$

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

I'm fine with a flat rate of taxation of equal percentage among everyone to perform the legitimate functions of government.

But I don't believe the function of government is to take from those who've worked hard and made better decisions and give it to those who didn't.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=Beemnseven;492936]I'm fine with a flat rate of taxation of equal percentage among everyone to perform the legitimate functions of government.

But I don't believe the function of government is to take from those who've worked hard and made better decisions and give it to those who didn't.[/quote]
Come on Beem don't you know thats how they buy peoples votes. When rep. lower taxes it for everyone when the dems lowers taxes they play the rich against poor game.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=firstdown;492953]Come on Beem don't you know thats how they buy peoples votes. When rep. lower taxes it for everyone when the dems lowers taxes they play the rich against poor game.[/quote]

Yep, I know. When the people realize that they can start voting themselves goodies out of the federal treasury, that's when nations begin to fall apart.

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=Beemnseven;492936]I'm fine with a flat rate of taxation of equal percentage among everyone to perform the legitimate functions of government.

[B]But I don't believe the function of government is to take from those who've worked hard and made better decisions and give it to those who[/B] [B]didn't[/B].[/quote]
Greetings, welcome to Socialism comrade.
We need to get this $$ leveling thing correct...........Big Brother knows best

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

For those who would gladly pay more taxes if the gov't wanted them to why aren't you sending in a little extra every April 15th?

What is finally "enough"? If we keep electing people who promise to do things for us if only we give them more money when do we finally reach the point where the gov't simply does everything for us? We just go to work and hand all our money over to them to do with as it pleases. It is the logical path of this line of thought. Who gets to decide where that line is? Do we trust them to finally draw it?

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=FRPLG;493030]For those who would gladly pay more taxes if the gov't wanted them to why aren't you sending in a little extra every April 15th?

What is finally "enough"? If we keep electing people who promise to do things for us if only we give them more money when do we finally reach the point where the gov't simply does everything for us? We just go to work and hand all our money over to them to do with as it pleases. It is the logical path of this line of thought. Who gets to decide where that line is? Do we trust them to finally draw it?[/quote]

It's got to be part of a good program. I don't like giving them my money. It's just that at times I think it's needed to have good government.

I think SS is a good thing. I think having a strong defense is a good thing. I think the GI bill is a good thing. I think having clean water, safe drugs and food, good homeland security, etc. is a good thing. So I am willing to part with some of my hard earned money to get those things. How do you propose to provide those things if not by way of the gov't?

The issue is about good programs. We need proper oversight. We need transparency in our government. We need reasonable controls on special interest. We need smart people in decision making positions.

Conservatives since Reagan have talked a big game about cutting government. But despite control of the presidency from 80-92 and from 2000-2008, what have we seen? Bigger govt. More corruption. Same old, same old. So I do not believe Mr. Maverick and his Alaskan side-kick are going to do any different.

Now maybe you support Barr. He may really intend to do something. Trouble is he isn't going to win.

My feeling is that the dems at least have some people that understand that gov't isn't going anywhere and the trick is to make it work better. The repub strategy is to run it into the ground until we have to kill it (this is called the "wither on the vine" strategy--see Newt Gingrich). All we get is a gov't that does not work--no smaller, just worse. I don't think the dems are a magic bullet here--just the lesser of 2 evils. That's the way things go in politics, usually (it's either the turd or the douche bag, I'm afraid...)

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=JWsleep;493159] (it's either the turd or the douche bag, I'm afraid...)[/quote]
That was a great episode....Vote or DIE LOL

Re: Voter Fraud In Ohio
 

[quote=JWsleep;493159]It's got to be part of a good program. I don't like giving them my money. It's just that at times I think it's needed to have good government.

I think SS is a good thing. I think having a strong defense is a good thing. I think the GI bill is a good thing. I think having clean water, safe drugs and food, good homeland security, etc. is a good thing. So I am willing to part with some of my hard earned money to get those things. How do you propose to provide those things if not by way of the gov't?

The issue is about good programs. We need proper oversight. We need transparency in our government. We need reasonable controls on special interest. We need smart people in decision making positions.

Conservatives since Reagan have talked a big game about cutting government. But despite control of the presidency from 80-92 and from 2000-2008, what have we seen? Bigger govt. More corruption. Same old, same old. So I do not believe Mr. Maverick and his Alaskan side-kick are going to do any different.

Now maybe you support Barr. He may really intend to do something. Trouble is he isn't going to win.

My feeling is that the dems at least have some people that understand that gov't isn't going anywhere and the trick is to make it work better. The repub strategy is to run it into the ground until we have to kill it (this is called the "wither on the vine" strategy--see Newt Gingrich). All we get is a gov't that does not work--no smaller, just worse. I don't think the dems are a magic bullet here--just the lesser of 2 evils. That's the way things go in politics, usually (it's either the turd or the douche bag, I'm afraid...)[/quote]
Sorry money does not equal good goverment. I'd say too much money makes for bad goverment and thats been our problem in the past. Spend, Spend, Spend. You also talk about killing goverment and mention Newt. Well congress spends the money and people point to the 90's and bill Clinton but remember Newt had control of the spending.