Good fact based WSJ article on who pays taxes in America

[Anonymous]

[quote=mike92104][quote=briansd1][quote=mike92104][quote=briansd1]
But my side is definitely better than the other side. [/quote]

How’s that for oversimplification?[/quote]

Yes, Democrats are the same as Republicans right down to ending the War in Iraq, to ending don’t ask don’t tell, to affordable care, to protection of a woman’s right to choose, to regulation of the banks that caused the financial crisis, to the Dream Act, to saving American automakers, and on, and on…
[/quote]

Wouldn’t these also be contrived issues aimed at your side of the aisle? [/quote]

Ending wars is a “contrived issue” ?

Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

[mike92104]

[quote=harvey][quote=mike92104][quote=briansd1][quote=mike92104][quote=briansd1]
But my side is definitely better than the other side. [/quote]

How’s that for oversimplification?[/quote]

Yes, Democrats are the same as Republicans right down to ending the War in Iraq, to ending don’t ask don’t tell, to affordable care, to protection of a woman’s right to choose, to regulation of the banks that caused the financial crisis, to the Dream Act, to saving American automakers, and on, and on…
[/quote]

Wouldn’t these also be contrived issues aimed at your side of the aisle? [/quote]

Ending wars is a “contrived issue” ?

Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself.[/quote]

To suddenly switch positions and call for an end to the war they voted for simply because they couldn’t allow a republican president to gain more popularity than he already had, yes. Or how about constantly calling for an end to a war, but not actually doing anything about it?

[mike92104]

[quote=briansd1]Like I said, mike, they are not the same to me. And I pointed out why.

You seem to agree with me here that Democrats and Republicans are not the same. That was my point.[/quote]

If you were implying that they use different contrived issues to achieve the same goals (lining their own pockets) then yes, there are some differences. However, the difference is only in their tactics.

[mike92104]

[quote=harvey]

This thread has succumbed to stupidity, as one group wants to actually discuss specific tax policy with specific goals (i.e. balancing the budget) but their voices are drowned out by those crying about “fairness” and being “punished for success” (what an idiotic phrase, btw.) or the old pablum: “all politicians suck.”

My position for the federal budget is basically to implement the Simpson Bowles plan. It’s a workable solution and I believe that Obama is the most likely to make it happen in the next presidential term (unlike Romney who wants to increase military spending and cut taxes, WTF?)

So what’s your position?

And before anyone says “tax the poor,” please do the fucking math first.[/quote]

My position would be that of a Libertarian. Scale back the size and scope of the federal government. This would balance the budget and at the same time give the “they’re all the same” politicians a smaller cookie jar to steal from.

[Anonymous]

[quote=mike92104]My position would be that of a Libertarian. Scale back the size and scope of the federal government. This would balance the budget and at the same time give the “they’re all the same” politicians a smaller cookie jar to steal from.[/quote]

Specifics?

What would you scale back?

Libertarian is a party/philosophy, what’s your budget solution?

Keep in mind that almost all federal spending falls into three items: defense, SS, and Medicare. (The latter two are funded by flat taxes and almost entirely by the bottom 99%)

What’s the actual plan?

[briansd1]

[quote=mike92104]To suddenly switch positions and call for an end to the war they voted for simply because they couldn’t allow a republican president to gain more popularity than he already had, yes.
[/quote]

The Democrats never voted for war. The war was never declared by Congress.

Bush had a resolution allowing force but he an his cabinet started the war.

As far as switching position, the war was going awry so better to cut the losses. Even Republicans saw that.

I change my mind sometimes when the facts call for a change. I was down on housing but now I see house prices improving. I see that the Fed was successful in keeping rates low to help the economy and housing.

[Anonymous]

A Liberal is a person that votes for higher taxes, then hires an accountant to help him avoid paying them.

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1]The Democrats never voted for war. The war was never declared by Congress.

Bush had a resolution allowing force but he an his cabinet started the war.

As far as switching position, the war was going awry so better to cut the losses. Even Republicans saw that.

I change my mind sometimes when the facts call for a change. […][/quote]

I generally agree with this, but most Dems did effectively vote for the war.

However, the Republicans were certainly the champions of the cause. And the Bush administration was responsible for the fraudulent intelligence used to convinced many (including me, at the time) that war was necessary.

But just because one agrees with the initial motivation for a war, doesn’t mean it should never end (unless of course you are defense contractor or international construction contractor, in which case you never want your revenue stream to end. For some folks, a few thousand dead American soldiers is a small price to trade for a few multibillion dollar contracts.)

[Anonymous]

[quote=harvey][quote=briansd1]The Democrats never voted for war. The war was never declared by Congress.

Bush had a resolution allowing force but he an his cabinet started the war.

As far as switching position, the war was going awry so better to cut the losses. Even Republicans saw that.

I change my mind sometimes when the facts call for a change. […][/quote]

I generally agree with this, but most Dems did effectively vote for the war.

However, the Republicans were certainly the champions of the cause. And the Bush administration was responsible for the fraudulent intelligence used to convinced many (including me, at the time) that war was necessary.

But just because one agrees with the initial motivation for a war, doesn’t mean it should never end (unless of course you are defense contractor or international construction contractor, in which case you never want your revenue stream to end. For some folks, a few thousand dead American soldiers is a small price to trade for a few multibillion dollar contracts.)[/quote]

The “fraudulent intelligence” to which you refer was the same info that the Israeli’s, the French, and the British had. Your hindsight is biased.
I would expect no less of a Liberal.

[briansd1]

[quote=Brutus]
The “fraudulent intelligence” to which you refer was the same info that the Israeli’s, the French, and the British had. Your hindsight is biased.
I would expect no less of a Liberal.[/quote]

The conservative French administration at the time was against war. De Villepin, the French foreign minister at the time flew to the UN several times to call against war. Remember that President Chirac was seen as generally pro American except for the ill-fated war. He was right.

The Israelis are always for war especially if we fight it for them.

The Brits will kiss our arses all the time. What we say goes. They are just clinging to us for the sake of their financial industry which is essentially a less regulated extension of ours.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
We, as a nation, have been subjected to two generations of outright bullshit from our supposed “leaders” and now have fewer rights, less money and less freedom, while we’re busy fighting each other over stupid shit like gay marriage. And, no, Brian, I don’t mean gay marriage is stupid, I mean it’s a contrived “issue” that is sufficiently divisive to keep our focus off what’s really happening.
[/quote]

And to bring us back to the original issue, that really happening is the squandering of $1 Trillion dollars a year on graft, wars and cronyism. Starting back with Bush and carrying through Obama.

That’s 400 Mars Curiosity Program in total each year. For 10+ years.

Wow, can you imagine if we had run 4000 Mars style programs?

[briansd1]

Back to taxes. It’s not lost on me that there’s no one on here that is as rich and powerful as Romney.

Americans have this unrealistic notion that they will become rich someday. So perhaps kissing up will result in some trickle down? This is like an extension of kissing up to a rich uncle.

I personally believe individuals have the right to manage their affairs as they see fit, including setting up tax shelters to lower one’s taxes.

But public figures are held to a higher standard. Adultery is perfectly legal. But can the American public accept an adulterous president?

It’s OK for Romney, as an individual, to take advantage of tax laws. But as president he will make the law. So his personal background is very important in judging his character. I’m sure that conservatives can agree with that.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]Americans have this unrealistic notion that they will become rich someday. So perhaps kissing up will result in some trickle down? This is like an extension of kissing up to a rich uncle. [/quote]
Who said anything about kissing up? Some of us are either afraid the definition of rich will drift downward from the $250k/year or who are annoyed that they’re being called rich even when they’re really not. $250k/year is barely middle class in some expensive cities.

The Dems loves to use millionaires for their example of wasteful rich people, then goes out and propose tax increase on those who make $250k/year.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]Who said anything about kissing up? Some of us are either afraid the definition of rich will drift downward from the $250k/year or who are annoyed that they’re being called rich even when they’re really not. $250k/year is barely middle class in some expensive cities.

The Dems loves to use millionaires for their example of wasteful rich people, then goes out and propose tax increase on those who make $250k/year.
[/quote]

That’s a ridiculous assertion. $250K a year is in the top 3% of income. There are a small handful of cities (NY, SF, others? I don’t know of any others.) that $250K a year doesn’t go near as far as it does in others. But nowhere is it barely middle class.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]Who said anything about kissing up? Some of us are either afraid the definition of rich will drift downward from the $250k/year or who are annoyed that they’re being called rich even when they’re really not. $250k/year is barely middle class in some expensive cities.

The Dems loves to use millionaires for their example of wasteful rich people, then goes out and propose tax increase on those who make $250k/year.
[/quote]

That’s a ridiculous assertion. $250K a year is in the top 3% of income. There are a small handful of cities (NY, SF, others? I don’t know of any others.) that $250K a year doesn’t go near as far as it does in others. But nowhere is it barely middle class.[/quote]
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you get 3% in the bag, I can see, oh, we need more money, lets go for the top 5%, then 10%. After all, they’re rich and it’s only the top 5-10%. 90% of the people aren’t making that much money. They’re no where near middle class. It’ll only affect another handful of cities. This doesn’t affect the majority of cities and 90% of the people.

So, since there are only a handful of cities that have expensive cost of living, they don’t count then? Add in Irvine, LA, certain part of SD (if you hate traffic and want to live near work), Chicago, Seattle, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, etc. to you handful of cities.

[Author]

Posts