Obama '08?

@okie,

To clarify, I am actually in favor of some progressivity in the tax system, such as rewarding those that actually work and earn something, to even give them money back. But at the same time, I am tired of the whiners and complainers that claim that it isn't enough, and that the poor are being abused. They are not being abused.

The worst thing we could do is to give even more money to the very low earners, such that kids look around and think, uh I can make a living working at fast food joints or Walmart, the government owes me a great wage, and I deserve not to pay any taxes. We end up with a dependent society, and we are already half way there. So, quit whinin and complaining, ci and the rest of you whiners. If it weren't for rich people and people that work very very hard, this country would be many more trillions in debt than we are already.

Do not blame the budget deficits on under taxing. It is due to overspending and too many under achievers.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

such that kids look around and think, uh I can make a living working at fast food joints or Walmart,

So, the great conservative, the defender of pure capitalism, now thinks that businesses like these aren't deserving of employees. Or are you saying, Okie, that they exploit their workers?

0 Replies

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2010
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]
1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%
1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH41 1989-1993]
1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%
1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1% [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6%
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%
2009-2010: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%[OBAMA 2009-2010]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Year.......FEDERAL RECEIPTS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980......$0.517 trillion [CARTER]
1988….…$0.909 trillion [REAGAN]
1992.......$1.091 trillion [BUSH41]
2000......$2.025 trillion [CLINTON]
2008......$2.521 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$2,931 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Can you even imagine trying to run a 4-person household on just 25k a year or less? Your life would be hellish! We don't charge these people taxes b.c they have practically no money to begin with and because their lives already suck as it is. You want to change that, to start charging them more money?

Cycloptichorn

Yes, I can imagine it, because I know some people very very well that are doing it. And their lives are not hellish. It is your spoiled attitude that would make it hellish. In fact, the family I grew up in probably made less than 25K, adjusted backwards for inflation. I checked the inflation calculator and $3,000 in 1960 would be worth $21490.37 in 2009. I doubt that our family made as much as $3,000 in 1960, in fact I would guess about half to 2/3 that amount. So, yes, I know what it is like, cyclops. For one thing, my parents never had a credit card, ever, to this very day. When I started working for a farmer to pay my way through college, I made $6 per day, plus room and board, and I worked 12 to 14 hours per day usually. When I got my first professional job out of college, I made $750 per month, and I was rolling in money at that point in my life, I thought so, and so did my family. Fact is, I paid off a new car I had purchased that very year, in cash.

In summary, I am sick of the whiners and complainers here. No wonder the illegals are more willing to risk their very lives to come here and do the work here in this country that we are too spoiled rotten to be willing to do it ourselves.

1 Reply

@okie,

Dude, this isn't 1960 anymore. The things you talk about don't have much to do with our modern day. Sometimes I think you are stuck in the past, mentally.

And the fact that you know some country families who live off of very little doesn't reflect the experience of 9/10ths of Americans - at all.

Quote:

t is your spoiled attitude that would make it hellish.

Bullshit. I submit that you don't know what you are talking about.

Let's say that you have a family of four that make 25k a year. That's about 2 grand per month. Let's say that you pay at least 500 bucks a month rent/mortgage and another 60o bucks a month for food for your family (this is the lowest cost the USDA accepts as being 'non-poverty'). That leaves you with around 900 bucks per month for the rest of your bills - car, gasoline, insurance, electricity, clothes, school supplies, medical expenses not covered by insurance, upkeep on the house, et cetera. How far do you think that other 900 dollars goes? How are those people supposed to save money and improve their situation, save for college, save for retirement so they aren't just sucking off of social security?

An actual examination of what 25k per year for a 4-person family is like quickly reveals that it sucks, Okie. I accept that you grew up country poor, but is that really how you think people should live?

Quote:

In summary, I am sick of the whiners and complainers here.

Nobodyon A2K whines and complains more than you, Okie. Except for maybe Hawkeye. You bitch constantly about the state of things and rarely if ever put forth a positive or constructive message.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nobodyon A2K whines and complains more than you, Okie. Except for maybe Hawkeye. You bitch constantly about the state of things and rarely if ever put forth a positive or constructive message.

Cycloptichorn

An example of pure nonsense. I put forth a positive and constructive message most of the time. Starting out, we could improve the country by electing politicians that believe in freedom, and that includes free markets, and believes that it is the American people that will solve our problems, not government. We can do it and would, if you guys would get on board with it, instead of whining and complaining and expecting the government to take care of you and everybody else. I have had many other constructive opinions that I've posted here.

Another point, you just finished reinforcing your belief that earning 25K or less is a hellish life. It is only hellish if you allow it to be, if you are too stupid to figure out how to improve from it. For example, you don't have to pay $500 for housing, you can move to places where you can find it less expensive. Just one example of dozens, cyclops. My dad came here from a foreign country, totally broke, without a dime, okay. I could go on for a long time about it, but he did not own a car for a long time, and rode the rails with bums to get to Oklahoma to find farm work back in the 30's, and made almost nothing for a few years. Did he want the government to take care of him? No.

If anyone thinks my family experiences have shaped my politics into a conservative viewpoint, you are correct.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Another point, you just finished reinforcing your belief that earning 25K or less is a hellish life. It is only hellish if you allow it to be, if you are too stupid to figure out how to improve from it.

You think the way to improve those people's lives is to increase their taxes? Just want to be clear on what your position is.

Yes, I think that living hand-to-mouth without many amenities and ZERO savings or security is hellish. It's a plan for long-term disaster and ending up even more on the gov't dole. I don't know why you seem to think this is a good idea.

Quote:

For example, you don't have to pay $500 for housing, you can move to places where you can find it less expensive.

Uh, really?

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/H150-03.pdf

The average rent or mortgage is around 684 a month. I picked a number considerably lower than that. You're talking about living in a mobile home, if you're talking about paying less than 500 a month for a mortgage or rent. And I don't really consider that all that great, thanks.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@okie,

You never showed us the bumps the golf balls that hit you. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Another point, you just finished reinforcing your belief that earning 25K or less is a hellish life. It is only hellish if you allow it to be, if you are too stupid to figure out how to improve from it.

You think the way to improve those people's lives is to increase their taxes? Just want to be clear on what your position is.

Yes, I think that living hand-to-mouth without many amenities and ZERO savings or security is hellish. It's a plan for long-term disaster and ending up even more on the gov't dole. I don't know why you seem to think this is a good idea.
Cycloptichorn

Self pity seldom accomplishes anything, cyclops. It is not overtaxing that is causing poverty. I would submit to you that it is moreso the attitude of people that causes poverty most of the time. And poverty never has to be a permanent condition, and in fact it is not for a huge number of people, which is a misconception of liberals. You libs assume it is the same people that stay impoverished. There may be some, but it isn't all.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

You libs assume it is the same people that stay impoverished. There may be some, but it isn't all.

It's a lot of people. Look up 'generational poverty' if you want to see statistics.

My point is that there's no reason to tax these people, Okie. Their lives already suck and we would get practically zero dollars from them anyway. What's the point of bitching about the fact that they pay no taxes - which is what you were doing, and I responded to?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You think the way to improve those people's lives is to increase their taxes? Just want to be clear on what your position is.

Cycloptichorn

No, I never said that. It would be my position however that we need to stop blaming others for our own failures or situtation, and that includes the rich. The higher achievers and earners already pay most of the taxes, and demonizing them does not improve your own situation if you are poor. Nobody ever improved themselves by envy and self pity. I also think that giving the poor more money is not necessarily a positive policy. It needs to be conditional, such as obtaining more education, higher skills, and producing more by working harder. Simply giving people money is not the solution to poverty. If you have ever raised kids, you would know this. Also if you run a business, you would know this.

3 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

The higher achievers and earners already pay most of the taxes, and demonizing them does not improve your own situation if you are poor.

It's not a matter of 'demonizing' them. It's a matter of looking at our country's financial situation realistically. I know that you have indicated that you would be open to progressive tax rates that would get you LYNCHED by your own party for even suggesting, so you're not against me in this problem.

When you are mega-rich, asking them to pay another 5% more in taxes means zero to their bottom line. Nothing. They go to bed super-rich just like they woke up. But it helps our entire country stay out of deficit and debt. You know that I have long said that only cutting spending AND raising taxes will balance our books, so I'm not against some modest cuts in spending (mostly in defense, which could use about a thirty percent haircut) or freezing things at this level for a while. But it's foolish to pretend that we shouldn't go after the money where it's at.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

The higher achievers and earners

So a banker who makes 3000% from other people's money and got cronies in the Fed a high achiever or crook?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I would submit to higher marginal tax rates for very high incomes, but not without also cutting government spending in a serious way. I have already posted a marginal tax rate table that I think would be reasonable, but I don't want that to be interpreted as me being in favor of any old rate hike that liberals want. It has to be reasonable and it has to be linked with spending cuts and smaller government.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Okay, I would submit to higher marginal tax rates, but not without also cutting government spending in a serious way.

Sure, though I'd ask where you wanted to cut government, specifically, and how you would address the issues that were previously solved by the agencies you'd cut.

I would point out though that your entire elected caucus would call you a traitor for agreeing to higher marginal rates, and an economic idiot. How do you reconcile your opinion with that of those you elected?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@talk72000,

If banking is easy money, why don't you try it?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I think you misjudge conservatives, cyclops. We are not cookie cutter people, all with the same opinions, like liberal Democrats tend to be.

For example, Eisenhower was clearly conservative, but he had some pretty high marginal tax rates during his tenure.

1 Reply

@okie,

3,000%? You want to justify it?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think you misjudge conservatives, cyclops. We are not cookie cutter people, all with the same opinions, like liberal Democrats tend to be.

Oh, please.

Do me a favor then: point out the Republican politician who is on the record supporting raises in marginal tax rates - even if they are matched with spending cuts.

You won't be able to find a single one, because your party doesn't allow such things. On the other hand, there are Democrats left and right who want the Bush tax cuts extended for EVERYONE.

You have it 100% backwards, and I think you know it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

3,000%? You want to justify it?

It isn't any of my business if he earns it honestly and his bank is solvent and not cheating anyone. If there is any corruption, then that needs to be taken care of.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know