A question for all conservatives...

[Peter Parka]

Oh and something i read this morning had me somewhat shocked...USA claims that House Dems, represent some of the wealthiest constituancies in the nation. How well are they able to help "the little man' while they have their heads up millionaires asses? Just askin.

Guess that just shows that Democrats arn't nearly as Communist as the Republican propaganda likes to preach. :dunno

Personally, I fail to see how being rich makes you a bad politician.

 

[Minor Axis]

You have a right to complain if you don't vote...why? Because it's not illegal. I don't want to choose from Bullshit A from Bullshit B. So I don't. Whether I vote or not...the elected official still has the power to regulate my life, so why can't I complain?

If you live in a system you are unhappy with and you don't put out any effort to move the system in the direction you want it to go, some would say you have no right to complain. If you want a very simplistic analogy, you are sitting on the couch at home complaining that it is cold, it's too cold! Sitting there complaining when you could walk over to the thermostat and turn up the heat, but instead you sit there and complain and expect someone else to do it for you.

Hard work doesn't equal success...Why not? Because if you succeed and work hard, you're winning over other people (some of which do not work hard and others which do work very hard.) Ultimately, someone has to fail for another to succeed.

Well it's hard work plus results and yes when you succeed someone else fails. Aren't you describing a fact of life? Is this an excuse not to put out any effort?

 

[Minor Axis]

Oh and something i read this morning had me somewhat shocked...USA claims that House Dems, represent some of the wealthiest constituancies in the nation. How well are they able to help "the little man' while they have their heads up millionaires asses? Just askin.

Do the millionaires they represent mind paying their taxes or drum up excuses why any of their hard earned money should go to society, infrastructure, or the greater good?

 

[nova]

Do the millionaires they represent mind paying their taxes or drum up excuses why any of their hard earned money should go to society, infrastructure, or the greater good?

We do not tax wealth per say, only the creation of wealth. Of course millionaires aren't typically concerned with taxing the creation of wealth since they already have theirs, what exactly does it matter to them if they make it that much harder for those behind them to come up.

Just once I'd like too see someone on the left not confuse wealth with the creation of wealth and recognize the inherent elitism of those who already have wealth pushing for higher taxes on the creation of wealth, making it harder for those who don't already have wealth to get it.

Let me put it this way, if you already have $10 million in the bank, how much does it really affect you to have the tax on the creation of another $250k+/year go up? The answer is not much...

If on the other hand, you're working your way up and trying to get to the point you have $10 million in the bank, the tax on creating another $250k+/year going up, has a significant impact on your ability to build wealth.

Its absolutely pernicious how people willingly get screwed and like it because they believe the lie that they're being helped....

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Guess that just shows that Democrats arn't nearly as Communist as the Republican propaganda likes to preach. :dunno

Personally, I fail to see how being rich makes you a bad politician.

I never said it did. And I also wasn't speaking of the wealth of the congressman/woman rather the wealth of the districts they represent. There is always the assumption that the Republicans only protect the wealthy, whereas the overly intellectual and compassionate Liberals are looking after the wee people. I guess it's okay to be rich....As long as you're voting democrat :24: Wealthy Republicans are bad people :24:

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Do the millionaires they represent mind paying their taxes or drum up excuses why any of their hard earned money should go to society, infrastructure, or the greater good?

Nah....Rich Democrats LOVE paying through their asses. Democrats are inherently better people.....I know a lot of millionaires, just for informational purposes, that willingly give away tons of money to charities, donate time and spend a lot of time doing for the greater good. Which nobody minds doing, when they aren't being forced at gunpoint. So let me as you, since you must have a number in your head (you and Tim) How much should we pay, precentage wise in taxes? When is enough enough? Hell Evan if you ain't okay paying 75% of your salary in taxes, you ain't a proud salutin' member of this fine country :24: :24: Liberalism is really a result of a head injury...I'm convinced

 

[Tim]

Well said, blunt and straight to the point. And I agree totally. But unfortunately we as a nation have gotten to the point where government has become a stop gap between the haves and have nots. In other words, whatever you are not willing to get on your own, you must be given.

I agree that we should help those who cannot help themselves, the powerless, the disabled, but I deny the right for anyone to be given that which they can obtain through ambition and some sense of personal pride. What's interesting is regardless of how you shake it out, if you punish industry, it is reflected in higher cost, so it affects the end user, if you put a heavy burden on the end user via more taxation, it stifles consumerism, which once again...affects the industry, and again affects the end user.

What we need is a government not influenced by either industry, or classes of people, but rather influenced by the knowledge that it must protect the rights of all its citizens equally, and do what's right for the collective, that will only begin when there is no longer incentive for DC to do anything other than the job they were elected to do. And we will only get those kinds of folks in office by letting go of stereotypes and realizing that WE need to impose term limitations by voting, they need to know they are on borrowed time if they don't do right by ALL OF US.

Or we could just sling mud, blame the ones before us and go nowhere, which is all I have seen since I was legally able to vote, rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell

This is where we see the government differently. I don't want a government that just takes from one class and gives to another. I don't want my tax dollars going to the lazy and unmotivated. I believe that everyone should strive to provide for themselves and not rely on handouts. BUT, and this is a big but, I see the governments role as providing for the commons. This is where we all put into the system via progressive taxation to provide for the commons. These are things like roads, bridges, infrastructure, military, sciences, health, fire protection, education, police, energy, communication, commerce, etc....
Roads and bridges because there is no way possible that I could pay for my own roads to travel on.
Military because I could not financially provide for my own protection
and the list can go on and on.
I mean just look at almost every new medicine and medical breakthrough here in the US over the last 100 years, they are mainly funded by the government.
We should also help provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. Including the disabled, the elderly and those who may have hit hard times. And like any other program out there, there will be abuse of the system and those who find a way to game the system. So we need laws to help stop the abuse.
Overall I see the government as a benefit to our existence. Is it fat and bloated? Yup. And I would love to see it trimmed down and streamlined. But this will never happen until we get the corporate influence out of it.

Do I want to stop my tax dollars from going to the lazy leaches who suck from the government programs? Of course, but I realize that it's a VERY small portion of my tax dollars that are going there. It's a red herring thrown into the debate to distract from the real topic at hand.

 

[alice in chains]

Minor, I put out alot of effort. I think you get my point you're just disputing me for the hell of it.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

This is where we see the government differently. I don't want a government that just takes from one class and gives to another. I don't want my tax dollars going to the lazy and unmotivated. I believe that everyone should strive to provide for themselves and not rely on handouts. BUT, and this is a big but, I see the governments role as providing for the commons. This is where we all put into the system via progressive taxation to provide for the commons. These are things like roads, bridges, infrastructure, military, sciences, health, fire protection, education, police, energy, communication, commerce, etc....
Roads and bridges because there is no way possible that I could pay for my own roads to travel on.
Military because I could not financially provide for my own protection
and the list can go on and on.
I mean just look at almost every new medicine and medical breakthrough here in the US over the last 100 years, they are mainly funded by the government.
We should also help provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. Including the disabled, the elderly and those who may have hit hard times. And like any other program out there, there will be abuse of the system and those who find a way to game the system. So we need laws to help stop the abuse.
Overall I see the government as a benefit to our existence. Is it fat and bloated? Yup. And I would love to see it trimmed down and streamlined. But this will never happen until we get the corporate influence out of it.

Do I want to stop my tax dollars from going to the lazy leaches who suck from the government programs? Of course, but I realize that it's a VERY small portion of my tax dollars that are going there. It's a red herring thrown into the debate to distract from the real topic at hand.

My problem with the entire system right now, is you really do NOT know where your money goes. What they say sounds good, but I'm not buying it. Republican, Democrat they are all worthless and dishonest. I just like the sound of the Republican lies better. That's really the only difference :24:

 

[alice in chains]

Tim said everything to the truth, I have nothing else to say...

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Roads, Bridges....Taxes from the sale of fuel. That's how it is supposed to happen. I'm not arguing the importance if military, medical research etc. However I have seen numbers on what the government gives away for research, what they pay for hammers and I think they need someone much more detail and frugal minded. No fucking way a hammer costs $700

 

[nova]

This is where we all put into the system via progressive taxation to provide for the commons. These are things like roads, bridges, infrastructure, military, sciences, health, fire protection, education, police, energy, communication, commerce, etc....

I agree we should ALL, and I do mean ALL contribute to the system.

However when you start talking progressive taxation, thats a violation of a fundamental principle this country was founded upon, namely equality under the law. If we do in fact have equality under the law, then no person should bear a greater burden of the expenses generated by the operation of gov't than any other person.

It becomes especially distasteful when you consider that the basis for determining who shoulders what burden, money, breaks down to time. People essentially get paid X/hour so if they pay the gov't Y% of their earnings, they've indirectly paid the gov't Y% of their time.

How can we expect some people to work half their lives (which I do currently) to support the gov't while there are other people only working 1/3, 1/10 or even less and even pretend to have equality under the law?

 

[Tim]

My problem with the entire system right now, is you really do NOT know where your money goes. What they say sounds good, but I'm not buying it. Republican, Democrat they are all worthless and dishonest. I just like the sound of the Republican lies better. That's really the only difference :24:

Things are changing.

This site would never have been started by a Republican... Recovery.gov
It's not perfect by any means, but it's a big step in the right direction.

And what about the new law that requires each representative the post any pending appropriation he is requesting on his official website right on the main page weeks before it goes into effect?

I see government changing as more and more people turn to the internet. We are at a crossroads in history where more and more information is available to us instantly. Our grandchildren will look back at us and think we were living in the dark ages. The internet is bringing political change quickly.

 

[nova]

Roads, Bridges....Taxes from the sale of fuel. That's how it is supposed to happen. I'm not arguing the importance if military, medical research etc. However I have seen numbers on what the government gives away for research, what they pay for hammers and I think they need someone much more detail and frugal minded. No fucking way a hammer costs $700

Fundamentally there is no way to make the gov't more frugal when the entire system is built from the ground up to spend as much $$ as possible.

Working in and around gov't as a contractor, I've learned a few things.

1. Parts of the gov't get punished for coming in under budget. If they come in under budget for the current year, then regardless of the upcoming years needs, their budget will be limited to the current year on the theory of "they didn't spend it last year so why do they need it this year."

2. The best sign that a program is about to be cancelled is the the amount of OT being worked goes through the roof. The money has to be burned before the program ends to prevent #1.

3. Gov't will spend a million dollars on labor before they spend a thousand on equipment. A lot of the work we do is extremely difficult without 2 monitors. Working on a single monitor doubles the time spent on some operations and my time isn't what I'd call cheap. We had to fight for over a year to get my second monitor. They wasted probably $200k in labor for want of a $200 monitor and did it to the tune of 10 engineers, so about $2 million total. Now imagine that going on across the entire gov't....

Things are changing.

This site would never have been started by a Republican... Recovery.gov
It's not perfect by any means, but it's a big step in the right direction.

Leave it to Democrats to be dumb enough to toot their own horn about the sham of a stimulus that even the CBO says there's absolutely no way to track what has been spent where because of the way it was written....

 

[Tim]

I agree we should ALL, and I do mean ALL contribute to the system.

However when you start talking progressive taxation, thats a violation of a fundamental principle this country was founded upon, namely equality under the law. If we do in fact have equality under the law, then no person should bear a greater burden of the expenses generated by the operation of gov't than any other person.

It becomes especially distasteful when you consider that the basis for determining who shoulders what burden, money, breaks down to time. People essentially get paid X/hour so if they pay the gov't Y% of their earnings, they've indirectly paid the gov't Y% of their time.

How can we expect some people to work half their lives (which I do currently) to support the gov't while there are other people only working 1/3, 1/10 or even less and even pretend to have equality under the law?

There is no way in hell that you even come close to a 50% tax.

I was in the 28% tax bracket last year, but when it was all said and done, only 6% of my total wages went to federal taxes.

And how do you consider progressive tax a violation of a fundamental principle this country was founded on? Everyone pays the exact same rates.
Everyone pays 10% on the first $8,000 they earn, then they pay 15% on everything between $8,000 and $32,000 then you pay 25% on everything between $32,000 and $77,000 and so on up to 35%

So if you make $100,000 in one year. You are in the 28% tax bracket but you only pay 22% in taxes since you are paying progressively. You don't pay 28% on $100,000 which is $28,000. It's actually $6,000 less than that since you are paying the same lower rates at the lower brackets.

I don't care if you make $10,000 a year or $100,000 a year, the first $8,000 in income is taxed at 10% for everyone. And it progressively goes up from there.

 

[Tim]

Leave it to Democrats to be dumb enough to toot their own horn about the sham of a stimulus that even the CBO says there's absolutely no way to track what has been spent where because of the way it was written....

Have you even looked into the site at all?

Go to the map and put your zip code in and it will show you every dollar spent in your local. It will give you complete details as to whether it was a no bid contract, if it was bid and by whom. It will tell you the exact amount of money and what it was used for. And it's like this for every dollar spent so far.
Like I said, it's not perfect, but it's light years ahead of anything else we have ever had access to before.
Just a quick look at my area I see that several of my local businesses have been awarded money and/or contracts.

 

[nova]

There is no way in hell that you even come close to a 50% tax.

Federal + State + SS + Medicare + Sales Tax + Property Tax + (name your tax here). I got pissed off enough about it last year to keep track of all the taxes we paid as I was keeping the books with Quicken. It was just slightly under half of what my wife and I make....

I was in the 28% tax bracket last year, but when it was all said and done, only 6% of my total wages went to federal taxes.

Glad you're in a politically favorable class and have lots of deductions, not all of us do.

And how do you consider progressive tax a violation of a fundamental principle this country was founded on? Everyone pays the exact same rates.

Everyone pays 10% on the first $8,000 they earn, then they pay 15% on everything between $8,000 and $32,000 then you pay 25% on everything between $32,000 and $77,000 and so on up to 35%

So if you make $100,000 in one year. You are in the 28% tax bracket but you only pay 22% in taxes since you are paying progressively. You don't pay 28% on $100,000 which is $28,000. It's actually $6,000 less than that since you are paying the same lower rates at the lower brackets.

I don't care if you make $10,000 a year or $100,000 a year, the first $8,000 in income is taxed at 10% for everyone. And it progressively goes up from there.

No lie? Thats how tax brackets work? Thats an amazing revelation. Basic reading and math have eluded me ever since I got outta Differential Equations my senior year of college.... :sarcasm

I think I explained it well enough above. A natural consequence of a progressive tax system is that some people shoulder a greater burden of the cost of gov't than others. It is fundamentally wrong to make one person work a greater portion of their life to support the gov't than another person when we are all supposed to be equal citizens...

 

[nova]

Have you even looked into the site at all?

Go to the map and put your zip code in and it will show you every dollar spent in your local. It will give you complete details as to whether it was a no bid contract, if it was bid and by whom. It will tell you the exact amount of money and what it was used for. And it's like this for every dollar spent so far.
Like I said, it's not perfect, but it's light years ahead of anything else we have ever had access to before.
Just a quick look at my area I see that several of my local businesses have been awarded money and/or contracts.

Oh yeah, it has data all right, but there are no functioning controls or auditing to ensure the data is current and correct.

OMB needs to ensure more accountability for stimulus spending - Nextgov

Concerns have been raised about the reliability of the data because OMB guidance does not require certification of the data to be published, according to a report the Government Accountability Office released on Wednesday.

"We continue to believe that there needs to be clearer accountability for the data submitted and during the subsequent federal review process," GAO said. In general, the GAO analysis found that stimulus funds are providing relief to states and localities but reporting challenges remain.

I was mistaken in that it was not the CBO but the GAO saying this...

 

[Tim]

99% of people don't realize how progressive taxes work...


I still find myself explaining it to people who don't want to work a few extra hours of overtime because they fear breaking into the next tax bracket and getting less than if they didn't work the overtime....

 

[Tim]

Oh yeah, it has data all right, but there are no functioning controls or auditing to ensure the data is current and correct.

OMB needs to ensure more accountability for stimulus spending - Nextgov



I was mistaken in that it was not the CBO but the GAO saying this...

What part of "It's not perfect but it's still light years ahead of what we had before" don't you understand?

Before this site was up and running you had little to no chance on finding out where the money was going and to whom. Now you can look it up anywhere you have an internet connection.