McCain”s moral compass

[SDEngineer]

[quote=asianautica][quote=esmith]
That’s not even the problem. The problem is that Obama appears to be more or less honest (“i’ll try to be fiscally responsible but i’ll have to raise taxes on the rich a little bit”) McCain, like Bush, is simply a populist (“i’ll lower taxes for everyone! vote for me! in the mean time i’ll continue running record high budget deficits so your dollars will be worth less and less“)
[/quote]
Since I don’t like either candidates and their plan, I’ll just stay out of the debate of who’s better. But my perfect candidate would say “I’ll lower everyone’s taxes and I’ll do A, B, C, D, etc to cut government spending so that we can have low taxes and reduce our deficit at the same time.”

The only reason I brought up the nursing family example is to show how 2 middle class jobs can get to $250k and therefore, $250k is not rich. They’re well off, yes, but not rich. Isn’t this the whole point with rewarding work vs wealth?[/quote]

Aren’t they still being rewarded? They’re making within about 10-15% of 2x what they’d be making if they were working half the hours. Their spendable (after tax) income is (at a rough guesstimate) a bit over 6K/mo more than if they were working 40hrs/each and making 125K/mo combined. I’d consider that a pretty good chunk of cash.

My apologies if I fail to cry for someone who is taking full advantage of our economic system, and therefore may be asked to foot a bit more of the bill therefrom than someone who is not benefitting as much from the economic system.

[an]

[quote=esmith]
Basically, there’s no easy way to cut government spending to any significant extent (other than pulling out of Iraq, which McCain does not intend to do, and cutting Medicare/SS benefits, which would be suicidal to even propose during the election campaign). We had almost 6 full years with a Republican president and a Republican congress (2001-2006) and they didn’t figure out how to do that. McCain won’t, either.
So it is dishonest to claim that you can start with an estimated budget deficit of 15% of your budget, CUT TAXES, and then somehow balance the whole thing.

The example of two nurses busting their asses working 6 12-hour shifts a week seems to be very far-fetched to me. First of all, very few middle-class jobs allow you to make 120k even with overtime. Sooner or later kids will appear and you can live comfortably in San Diego with 120k income, stay-at-home mom, and some kids. At that moment your nursing family will fall out of 250k bracket.

250k income puts you in the top 5% earning households in San Diego. I think that’s rich.[/quote]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?

[an]

[quote=esmith]
Basically, there’s no easy way to cut government spending to any significant extent (other than pulling out of Iraq, which McCain does not intend to do, and cutting Medicare/SS benefits, which would be suicidal to even propose during the election campaign). We had almost 6 full years with a Republican president and a Republican congress (2001-2006) and they didn’t figure out how to do that. McCain won’t, either.
So it is dishonest to claim that you can start with an estimated budget deficit of 15% of your budget, CUT TAXES, and then somehow balance the whole thing.

The example of two nurses busting their asses working 6 12-hour shifts a week seems to be very far-fetched to me. First of all, very few middle-class jobs allow you to make 120k even with overtime. Sooner or later kids will appear and you can live comfortably in San Diego with 120k income, stay-at-home mom, and some kids. At that moment your nursing family will fall out of 250k bracket.

250k income puts you in the top 5% earning households in San Diego. I think that’s rich.[/quote]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?

[an]

[quote=esmith]
Basically, there’s no easy way to cut government spending to any significant extent (other than pulling out of Iraq, which McCain does not intend to do, and cutting Medicare/SS benefits, which would be suicidal to even propose during the election campaign). We had almost 6 full years with a Republican president and a Republican congress (2001-2006) and they didn’t figure out how to do that. McCain won’t, either.
So it is dishonest to claim that you can start with an estimated budget deficit of 15% of your budget, CUT TAXES, and then somehow balance the whole thing.

The example of two nurses busting their asses working 6 12-hour shifts a week seems to be very far-fetched to me. First of all, very few middle-class jobs allow you to make 120k even with overtime. Sooner or later kids will appear and you can live comfortably in San Diego with 120k income, stay-at-home mom, and some kids. At that moment your nursing family will fall out of 250k bracket.

250k income puts you in the top 5% earning households in San Diego. I think that’s rich.[/quote]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?

[an]

[quote=esmith]
Basically, there’s no easy way to cut government spending to any significant extent (other than pulling out of Iraq, which McCain does not intend to do, and cutting Medicare/SS benefits, which would be suicidal to even propose during the election campaign). We had almost 6 full years with a Republican president and a Republican congress (2001-2006) and they didn’t figure out how to do that. McCain won’t, either.
So it is dishonest to claim that you can start with an estimated budget deficit of 15% of your budget, CUT TAXES, and then somehow balance the whole thing.

The example of two nurses busting their asses working 6 12-hour shifts a week seems to be very far-fetched to me. First of all, very few middle-class jobs allow you to make 120k even with overtime. Sooner or later kids will appear and you can live comfortably in San Diego with 120k income, stay-at-home mom, and some kids. At that moment your nursing family will fall out of 250k bracket.

250k income puts you in the top 5% earning households in San Diego. I think that’s rich.[/quote]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?

[an]

[quote=esmith]
Basically, there’s no easy way to cut government spending to any significant extent (other than pulling out of Iraq, which McCain does not intend to do, and cutting Medicare/SS benefits, which would be suicidal to even propose during the election campaign). We had almost 6 full years with a Republican president and a Republican congress (2001-2006) and they didn’t figure out how to do that. McCain won’t, either.
So it is dishonest to claim that you can start with an estimated budget deficit of 15% of your budget, CUT TAXES, and then somehow balance the whole thing.

The example of two nurses busting their asses working 6 12-hour shifts a week seems to be very far-fetched to me. First of all, very few middle-class jobs allow you to make 120k even with overtime. Sooner or later kids will appear and you can live comfortably in San Diego with 120k income, stay-at-home mom, and some kids. At that moment your nursing family will fall out of 250k bracket.

250k income puts you in the top 5% earning households in San Diego. I think that’s rich.[/quote]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
My apologies if I fail to cry for someone who is taking full advantage of our economic system, and therefore may be asked to foot a bit more of the bill therefrom than someone who is not benefitting as much from the economic system.
[/quote]
No need to apologize. The rules are what it is and those who are hard working will do well, regardless. Just a little less well with some policy vs other. But those who leech will continue to whine and I won’t be crying for them either. The economic system is the same for all, if they don’t know how to take advantage of it, well, it’s just too bad.

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
My apologies if I fail to cry for someone who is taking full advantage of our economic system, and therefore may be asked to foot a bit more of the bill therefrom than someone who is not benefitting as much from the economic system.
[/quote]
No need to apologize. The rules are what it is and those who are hard working will do well, regardless. Just a little less well with some policy vs other. But those who leech will continue to whine and I won’t be crying for them either. The economic system is the same for all, if they don’t know how to take advantage of it, well, it’s just too bad.

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
My apologies if I fail to cry for someone who is taking full advantage of our economic system, and therefore may be asked to foot a bit more of the bill therefrom than someone who is not benefitting as much from the economic system.
[/quote]
No need to apologize. The rules are what it is and those who are hard working will do well, regardless. Just a little less well with some policy vs other. But those who leech will continue to whine and I won’t be crying for them either. The economic system is the same for all, if they don’t know how to take advantage of it, well, it’s just too bad.

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
My apologies if I fail to cry for someone who is taking full advantage of our economic system, and therefore may be asked to foot a bit more of the bill therefrom than someone who is not benefitting as much from the economic system.
[/quote]
No need to apologize. The rules are what it is and those who are hard working will do well, regardless. Just a little less well with some policy vs other. But those who leech will continue to whine and I won’t be crying for them either. The economic system is the same for all, if they don’t know how to take advantage of it, well, it’s just too bad.

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
My apologies if I fail to cry for someone who is taking full advantage of our economic system, and therefore may be asked to foot a bit more of the bill therefrom than someone who is not benefitting as much from the economic system.
[/quote]
No need to apologize. The rules are what it is and those who are hard working will do well, regardless. Just a little less well with some policy vs other. But those who leech will continue to whine and I won’t be crying for them either. The economic system is the same for all, if they don’t know how to take advantage of it, well, it’s just too bad.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=asianautica]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?
[/quote]

I must have missed the post where anyone claimed that someone making 250K+/yr are leeches of society or that they don’t deserve the $$$ that they earn.

Has anyone here (or anywhere) advocated a 100% tax rate on earnings above 125K that I missed?

I think the general consensus on the liberal side is that anyone making that amount certainly does deserve an increased income – but at the same time, since they are clearly reaping the greatest benefits of our economic policies, they should bear a greater marginal share of supporting our economic policies.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=asianautica]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?
[/quote]

I must have missed the post where anyone claimed that someone making 250K+/yr are leeches of society or that they don’t deserve the $$$ that they earn.

Has anyone here (or anywhere) advocated a 100% tax rate on earnings above 125K that I missed?

I think the general consensus on the liberal side is that anyone making that amount certainly does deserve an increased income – but at the same time, since they are clearly reaping the greatest benefits of our economic policies, they should bear a greater marginal share of supporting our economic policies.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=asianautica]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?
[/quote]

I must have missed the post where anyone claimed that someone making 250K+/yr are leeches of society or that they don’t deserve the $$$ that they earn.

Has anyone here (or anywhere) advocated a 100% tax rate on earnings above 125K that I missed?

I think the general consensus on the liberal side is that anyone making that amount certainly does deserve an increased income – but at the same time, since they are clearly reaping the greatest benefits of our economic policies, they should bear a greater marginal share of supporting our economic policies.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=asianautica]

I agree that it won’t be easy to cut spending but I think with a Democrat controlled congress, that might help vs a Republican controlled congress and Bush as president. It might not be easy but I think it must be done.

I agree that the extreme overtime and double can only be done for a short period of time and when kids come, that can’t happen. But there’s a broad paint stroke of all people making $250k are just leeches of society and don’t deserve the $ they earn. They don’t work for their $, so they shouldn’t be rewarded.

If you think 250k HH income is rich, then you must also consider an individual making $125k to be rich too, right?
[/quote]

I must have missed the post where anyone claimed that someone making 250K+/yr are leeches of society or that they don’t deserve the $$$ that they earn.

Has anyone here (or anywhere) advocated a 100% tax rate on earnings above 125K that I missed?

I think the general consensus on the liberal side is that anyone making that amount certainly does deserve an increased income – but at the same time, since they are clearly reaping the greatest benefits of our economic policies, they should bear a greater marginal share of supporting our economic policies.

[Author]

Posts