Republican Judgement

[Alien Allen]

The supreme court also made an abominational ruling on the commerce clause

They fuck up a lot.

Consider the fact who was on the supreme court back then. And FDR still wanted to stack further as he was not content and wanted more of his socialist activism put in place.

A proper ruling would have taken into consideration the fact that this really was a states right issue. But then it fits right in with how they ruled on the commerce clause.

The problem is not that we need to quit whining and over turn it. It never should have been ruled that way to begin with. Classic case of where the govt over reaches and then ensures it stays that way I guess

 

[Tim]

The supreme court also made an abominational ruling on the commerce clause

They fuck up a lot.

Consider the fact who was on the supreme court back then. And FDR still wanted to stack further as he was not content and wanted more of his socialist activism put in place.

A proper ruling would have taken into consideration the fact that this really was a states right issue. But then it fits right in with how they ruled on the commerce clause.

The problem is not that we need to quit whining and over turn it. It never should have been ruled that way to begin with. Classic case of where the govt over reaches and then ensures it stays that way I guess

So what? It's still the law of the land... not the law of the land with an asterisk next to it.

Like it or not, the United States was set up this way. It doesn't matter if a fringe group of nuts like yourself think the SC overstepped it's bounds and all social programs should be abolished. And I say fringe group because the majority of American's (Over 80%) do NOT want to end SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

Hell, I think Citizens United was a major travesty of justice. It made me sick to my stomach when the court ruled in favor...

 

[Alien Allen]

So what? It's still the law of the land... not the law of the land with an asterisk next to it.

Like it or not, the United States was set up this way. It doesn't matter if a fringe group of nuts like yourself think the SC overstepped it's bounds and all social programs should be abolished. And I say fringe group because the majority of American's (Over 80%) do NOT want to end SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

Hell, I think Citizens United was a major travesty of justice. It made me sick to my stomach when the court ruled in favor...

could you kindly point out where I have stated all social programs should be abolished?

so I am part of a fringe group eh?

by the way of that 80% how many of those are over 50 years old and nearing to reap those benefits.

I would bet you the vast majority under 40 would disagree as unlike you they can see what a ponzi scheme all those safety nets have turned into. Wanting to make them sustainable is different than putting ones head in the sand and dreaming they can continue as they are.

 

[Tim]

Ponzi scheme? You just love throwing that out there, don't you?

I pay in now and I'll collect later... how is that a ponzi scheme? Like I pointed out before, how is this any difference than insurance?

If you don't work and don't pay SSI tax, then you will never collect SSI. If you only contribute a small amount over your lifetime, then you get a substantially reduced benefit.

 

[retro]

In May 1937 the supreme court ruled on the constitutionality of the Social Security act.
That ruling becomes law of the land and holds as much weight as the constitution.

The only way to change that... well, either you need to amend the constitution or have the supreme court overturn precedent... neither is likely to occur. So suck it up, quit whining about it and except it as constitutional.

Wait... so the Supreme Court is infallible? News to me.

Have they ever ruled on Medicare? Not to my knowledge. I will still maintain that under the 10th Amendment, any and all social programs mandated by the federal government are patently unconstitutional.

 

[retro]

Ponzi scheme? You just love throwing that out there, don't you?

I pay in now and I'll collect later... how is that a ponzi scheme? Like I pointed out before, how is this any difference than insurance?

If you don't work and don't pay SSI tax, then you will never collect SSI. If you only contribute a small amount over your lifetime, then you get a substantially reduced benefit.

Social Security is a wholly insolvent program, and more than likely will not exist when it comes time for me to be able to collect on my "benefits". I also shouldn't have my retirement mandated by the federal government.

 

[Minor Axis]

We certainly do if you think the honorable way to help others is to take someone else's property to do it.

And you apply honor to greed. Progressive tax systems have always believed that the rich can afford to pay more into the system, because they can afford it. Your sounding more like Gordon Gecko than Mr. Patriot.

Moderate to liberals should find the following article interesting. Conservatives will hate it.

Newsweek- Republicans Box Themselves In by Paul Bagala

Best quotes:

And therein lies the conundrum for Republicans. They are working—earnestly, passionately, some say fanatically—to cut spending at a moment when voters say they oppose nearly all specific spending cuts and care far more intensely about jobs.

In the GOP’s historic 2010 landslide of distant memory, reducing the budget deficit was the top economic priority of their voters by a 20-point margin. Just eight months later, most Americans are in a very different place. A Fox News poll (unlikely to skew left), found voters preferring their leaders to focus on jobs and the economy over the deficit and government spending by more than 2 to 1—a 28-point margin.

An overwhelming 70 percent of self-described Tea Party supporters oppose cutting Medicare and Medicaid.

Come to think of it, when the Tea Partiers were rallying we saw plenty of photos of guys in tricorn hats and lots of images of patriots waving “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, but I can’t recall a single person burning his or her Medicare card. Those Tea Partiers were, I believe, honestly concerned with the deficit. But trusting Republican politicians to balance the budget is like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (who famously quipped to then-Treasury secretary Paul O’Neill that “deficits don’t matter”), the Republicans took the largest surplus in American history and turned it into the largest deficit.

Ronald Reagan’s first-term budget director, David Stockman, admitted 30 years ago that supply-side economics was a Trojan horse for cutting the top tax rate for the rich. Well, the old empty horse is back. This time the GOP is using the deficit they created as justification to destroy the Medicare program they have always hated. Trouble is, while Republican politicians may hate Medicare, the American people love it.

And just what lurks inside the Trojan horse? More tax cuts for the rich. That’s right. The Republican budget plan doesn’t even reduce the deficit in the near term because it places a higher priority on cutting taxes, especially for the rich. Even after essentially ending Medicare, such cuts produce no deficit reduction—though they do reduce the top marginal income-tax rate on the rich to its lowest level in 80 years.

And the best for last:

It’s a terrible box they’re in. As Newt Gingrich has recently proved, a GOP candidate cannot dare oppose the plan to essentially end Medicare if he or she hopes to garner the support of the revolutionary right that constitutes such a powerful force in Republican presidential primaries.

 

[Tim]

And after having the gavel for 6 months.... where are the jobs Mr. Boehner? Not one fucking bill has been taken to the floor that would help create one job.... not one.

 

[Panacea]

And after having the gavel for 6 months.... where are the jobs Mr. Boehner? Not one fucking bill has been taken to the floor that would help create one job.... not one.

Not to joke about the obvious, but has he at least personally hired someone to paint him orange? You're right...

 

[Tim]

Not to joke about the obvious, but has he at least personally hired someone to paint him orange? You're right...

He was on the payroll long before he became speaker of the house.

 

[Minor Axis]

Please show me where they are provided for within the Constitution. I don't see anywhere in there that says that the government shall provide health care, retirement benefits (that most younger workers aren't even going to see), or anything else of the sort.

I don't even think the Supreme Court can decide what is constitutional on anything other than a 5-4 vote. So what does that tell you? That the Supreme Court is political and what is Constitutional does not have black and white clarity.

And after having the gavel for 6 months.... where are the jobs Mr. Boehner? Not one fucking bill has been taken to the floor that would help create one job.... not one.

And every Republican legislature that has been voted into office has spent most of their time trying to gut unions than push one program ment to create jobs. In Wisconsin, they got the unions to give up some amount, I forget how much, lets say $1B in benefits. But instead of applying these savings to the state deficit, they turned around and gave $1B in tax breaks to millionaires! This is utter complete incompetence coupled with malevolence!

 

[Alien Allen]

Ponzi scheme? You just love throwing that out there, don't you?

I pay in now and I'll collect later... how is that a ponzi scheme? Like I pointed out before, how is this any difference than insurance?

If you don't work and don't pay SSI tax, then you will never collect SSI. If you only contribute a small amount over your lifetime, then you get a substantially reduced benefit.

Except for the few exemptions which I think are for only govt workers everybody is FORCED to pay into social security. I believe there is a way to opt out but have yet to see anybody accomplish that.

You seem to not understand that people for years took out more than they put in. To those who are quite elderly they drew out every penny they contributed years and years ago.

Couple that with the fact the worker to retiree ratio is almost the opposite of when social security started.

Those who are young are going to be fucked one way or another. The math does not lie.

Sure seems to look and smell like a ponzi scheme

 

[Minor Axis]

Sure seems to look and smell like a ponzi scheme

Ponzi schemes are designed to defraud. Social programs are not. You might argue the end result is the same, but that depends on how the program is run. So far the main programs SS and Medicare have been run horribly. I can see the argument this should be grounds to do away with them. I see the argument but I don't agree. Any program, any system of government is only as good as the ones running it. The idea is a good one. We need to run it better.

 

[Alien Allen]

Ponzi schemes are designed to defraud. Social programs are not. You might argue the end result is the same, but that depends on how the program is run. So far the main programs SS and Medicare have been run horribly. I can see the argument this should be grounds to do away with them. I see the argument but I don't agree. Any program, any system of government is only as good as the ones running it. The idea is a good one. We need to run it better.

I think it might as well be a matter of fraud because there is no way it can sustain itself under its current form and every damn member of congress knows it.

It needs to be reformed in a way that nobody will tolerate. Including probably doubling the amount of taxes paid along with raising the age you can obtain the money by probably 5 years.

I think we need to find a way to replace it where it is phased out.

 

[Accountable]

Absolutely nobody is suggesting that. That's what you keep saying with nothing to back it up.

You must've missed it.

We group together in civilizations for mutual benefit. If you come up with a real good idea that appeals to the masses you become a million/billionaire. Does a moral sense tell you that if someone manages to work the system and makes a fortune then they deserve to keep it all or can they afford to pay much more to support the system that gave them the opportunity to become rich? I've said it before, but I don't believe anyone needs more than a million dollars a year to live on, in fact the vast majority would be thrilled to live on just a measly $300k per year. So while I acknowledge the moral necessity of individuals supporting themselves and being productive members of society, I question a system that allows a few billionaires on one end and masses of poor on the other.

So do I. You think excess is ok. The bible calls it gluttony and greed. I think there should be limits to wealth.

Percentages, that's how our tax code works, not absolutes. There is no cap anywhere in our tax structure nor is anyone suggesting it.

except for Minor.

Greedy? You mean for all the government profit? Oh, that's right, our government doesn't work for profit.

The greed I'm referring to is (collective) your greed in wanting more and ever more from others without being willing to pay more yourself. A flat percentage income tax will still have the more financially productive pay more. A progressive system isn't necessary.

Again 'there's more money to be had' is not justification for taxing people more.

 

[Alien Allen]

i would prefer a consumption tax to replace what we have

it is progressive by its nature in that those with more money purchase more yet one can control how much they are taxed

the existing system is fubar

get rid of the write offs. all of em

that is the reason the tax rates could be so high 50 years ago. The rich could shelter their money and still paid about the same.

lets get rid of the gimmicks and find something that is rational. Such as having a budget which reflects what will be coming in rather than what we now have

 

[Accountable]

You'd have to repeal the 16th Amendment first; otherwise we're just giving Congress two revenue streams.

eta: I agree with getting rid of exemptions & other loopholes.

 

[Tim]

i would prefer a consumption tax to replace what we have

it is progressive by its nature in that those with more money purchase more yet one can control how much they are taxed

the existing system is fubar

get rid of the write offs. all of em

that is the reason the tax rates could be so high 50 years ago. The rich could shelter their money and still paid about the same.

lets get rid of the gimmicks and find something that is rational. Such as having a budget which reflects what will be coming in rather than what we now have

A consumption tax would put an unfair burden on lower income families. Almost all of their income goes directly out the door. It's those who make obscene amounts of money who consume much less as a percentage of their income and pack the rest away.

Take a look at what you earn, what percentage goes right back out the door for day to day living expenses? Because it is those expenses that will be taxed, not the left over that you invest... So how much of your income is that?
Now take a look at these hedge fund managers that make billions a year. What percent of their incomes goes to supporting their lifestyle?

So explain to me how this system is fairer...

 

[Tim]

I'm not sure why we can't have a very simple progressive tax code with zero exemptions.

No tax on the first $10,000
5% on $10,001 - $50,000
10% on $50,001 - $200,000
15% on $200,001 - $500,000
20% on $500,001 - $1,000,000
25% on $1,000,001 - $2,000,000
30% on $2,000,001 - $3,000,000
35% on $3,000,001 - $4,000,000
40% above $4,000,001

 

[Tim]

With the above rate, you would be paying $4,000 in tax with $70,000 of income. That's an effective rate of just under 6%
That rate almost mirrors what I pay right now...

Hell, bump all the percentages up just a few points and have everything under one roof. No FICA, no medicare, nothing. Just one flat fee.