[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree, but we had a Republican ion power during the Real estate bubble and still went further in debt. The point was that the DEms are pro tax , but are just as guilty as the Republicans on spending. Dems =tax and spend and the Republicans= Barrow and Spend :)[/quote]
This, more or less… they both borrow a lot.
It feels like the Republicans do a better job of sticking to their self-proclaimed principles of fiscal conservatism when they are the minority, or control a branch of government… any more they turn into flat-out big-government social conservatives as a bloc.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
While , i agree we need to do something about debt , let’s not forget about everyone that had something to do with this , going back to Ronald Reagan, I know all the so called conservatives think that means killing Obamacare IMO in doesn’t
the concept of Insurance was never intended for profit .[/quote]
You can look up public insurance companies and see they are not making an obscene amount of profit after all of their expenses are taken into account. [/quote]
They should not be making any profit , The problem is the Banks , Insurance companies and investment companies have all blurred their lines . [/quote]
Wait why shouldn’t insurance companies make profits?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree, but we had a Republican ion power during the Real estate bubble and still went further in debt. The point was that the DEms are pro tax , but are just as guilty as the Republicans on spending. Dems =tax and spend and the Republicans= Barrow and Spend :)[/quote]
This, more or less… they both borrow a lot.
It feels like the Republicans do a better job of sticking to their self-proclaimed principles of fiscal conservatism when they are the minority, or control a branch of government… any more they turn into flat-out big-government social conservatives as a bloc.[/quote]
Even now their “budget cuts” are more political than anything. Neither party is serious about cutting spending, the only difference is republicans want to lower taxes while spending increases and democrats pretty consistently raise taxes as spending increases. There’s always talk of decreasing spending but it never happens.
The real issue is that the Tea Party put their weight behind the GOP and they got no payoff. They voted for individuals under the guise of cutting spending but in reality it’s just a buzzword for their campaign. Now that they see this they’re calling for some cuts in spending and the republicans are really just looking to do the minimum necessary to keep that very proactive group of voters to keep them in power.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree, but we had a Republican ion power during the Real estate bubble and still went further in debt. The point was that the DEms are pro tax , but are just as guilty as the Republicans on spending. Dems =tax and spend and the Republicans= Barrow and Spend :)[/quote]
This, more or less… they both borrow a lot.
It feels like the Republicans do a better job of sticking to their self-proclaimed principles of fiscal conservatism when they are the minority, or control a branch of government… any more they turn into flat-out big-government social conservatives as a bloc.[/quote]
Even now their “budget cuts” are more political than anything. Neither party is serious about cutting spending, the only difference is republicans want to lower taxes while spending increases and democrats pretty consistently raise taxes as spending increases. There’s always talk of decreasing spending but it never happens.
The real issue is that the Tea Party put their weight behind the GOP and they got no payoff. They voted for individuals under the guise of cutting spending but in reality it’s just a buzzword for their campaign. Now that they see this they’re calling for some cuts in spending and the republicans are really just looking to do the minimum necessary to keep that very proactive group of voters to keep them in power.
[/quote]
This!
Which is why the tea party has started making a list of who they are going after next year. Also isn’t it amazing that only a select few like Rand are the only one’s who kept their word.
I feel like I was tricked into believing that it was a libertarian movement, but it’s been co-opted (or maybe always was) in a product of the corporate GOP, and is basically now where the Republican party was in the early 90s… a little more fiscally conservative than the Neo-Cons (but not much) and very socially conservative with no qualms about using the government to further their social agenda (I don’t see this Tea Party as it is now being against “the war on drugs” like I thought they would be around 2008).
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
John, how are you feeling about the Tea Party?
I feel like I was tricked into believing that it was a libertarian movement, but it’s been co-opted (or maybe always was) in a product of the corporate GOP, and is basically now where the Republican party was in the early 90s… a little more fiscally conservative than the Neo-Cons (but not much) and very socially conservative with no qualms about using the government to further their social agenda (I don’t see this Tea Party as it is now being against “the war on drugs” like I thought they would be around 2008).[/quote]
I like a few of them that are standing apart. I am encouraged by the outrage I am seeing by the tea party people over that POS budget deal. I am also encouraged by Sarah Palin being kicked to the sidelines.
I still like the people in the movement which is why I will continue to work with them, there is a reason why in every tea party straw poll Ron Paul gets either first or second and I don’t want to turn my back on a movement that has such great respect for the man.
But for most of who are in office, they need to be kicked out and we need to send new ones in.
And what happens if/when China responds with lower/eliminating their corperate tax rate?[/quote]
China’s corporate tax rate is already lower than the US’.
No, consumption taxes are too regressive and tend to hammer the middle class to be enacted as the sole provider of revenue. But I’d like to see tax revenue diversified, so I’d be in favor adding a consumption tax to, say, gasoline while at the same time lowering income tax rates.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
While , i agree we need to do something about debt , let’s not forget about everyone that had something to do with this , going back to Ronald Reagan, I know all the so called conservatives think that means killing Obamacare IMO in doesn’t
the concept of Insurance was never intended for profit .[/quote]
You can look up public insurance companies and see they are not making an obscene amount of profit after all of their expenses are taken into account. [/quote]
They should not be making any profit , The problem is the Banks , Insurance companies and investment companies have all blurred their lines . [/quote]
Wait why shouldn’t insurance companies make profits?[/quote]
They were intended to spread the cost of a loss , now the main motivation is profit .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
While , i agree we need to do something about debt , let’s not forget about everyone that had something to do with this , going back to Ronald Reagan, I know all the so called conservatives think that means killing Obamacare IMO in doesn’t
the concept of Insurance was never intended for profit .[/quote]
You can look up public insurance companies and see they are not making an obscene amount of profit after all of their expenses are taken into account. [/quote]
They should not be making any profit , The problem is the Banks , Insurance companies and investment companies have all blurred their lines . [/quote]
Wait why shouldn’t insurance companies make profits?[/quote]
They were intended to spread the cost of a loss , now the main motivation is profit .
[/quote]
The whole point is to sell a service. Their service is shared risk.
And what happens if/when China responds with lower/eliminating their corperate tax rate?[/quote]
China’s corporate tax rate is already lower than the US’.
No, consumption taxes are too regressive and tend to hammer the middle class to be enacted as the sole provider of revenue. But I’d like to see tax revenue diversified, so I’d be in favor adding a consumption tax to, say, gasoline while at the same time lowering income tax rates.[/quote]
But the benifit of a regressive tax is everyone pays. Also the rich would be paying more in my 5% tax on food and clothing for instance because they buy much more expensive food and clothes, Plus with the elimination of the income tax people have more money to spend.
I don’t believe in taxing businesses or investers/savers. If we are to believe that tax’s can be used to hinder activities doesn’t it make sense not to tax the two things that drive our economy?
And what happens if/when China responds with lower/eliminating their corperate tax rate?[/quote]
China’s corporate tax rate is already lower than the US’.
No, consumption taxes are too regressive and tend to hammer the middle class to be enacted as the sole provider of revenue. But I’d like to see tax revenue diversified, so I’d be in favor adding a consumption tax to, say, gasoline while at the same time lowering income tax rates.[/quote]
I doubt the increase in pay would keep up with the rising prices of everything else due to transportation and production cost increases.
I think a gas tax is a bad idea.
I think, personally, cutting the military budget and social security would help a lot, as well as reevaluating pension plans. I know, it sucks that some people have paid into it and wont get anything back, but unless some people get screwed, we’re all screwed.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I know, it sucks that some people have paid into it and wont get anything back, but unless some people get screwed, we’re all screwed.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I know, it sucks that some people have paid into it and wont get anything back, but unless some people get screwed, we’re all screwed.
[/quote]
That’s the spirit. :)[/quote]
I’ve had some arguments with my friends over things like this, specifically unemployment. A few of them were collecting, under conditions where I felt that it was wrong to do so (living at home, no children, etc - or while doing an internship instead of working). Of course the response was always “Hey, I paid into it.” (btw, for a short time I did collect some partial unemployment, but since getting a massage gig where I make a little extra cash, have stopped).
The concept that, even though they did pay into it, the government doesn’t have the money to give you, never seemed to bother them.
This whole “Take everything you can get, play the system - isnt competition grand?!” mentality has us stealing the floorboards from under our own feet. But everybody is convinced they can get away with it.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I know, it sucks that some people have paid into it and wont get anything back, but unless some people get screwed, we’re all screwed.
[/quote]
That’s the spirit. :)[/quote]
I’ve had some arguments with my friends over things like this, specifically unemployment. A few of them were collecting, under conditions where I felt that it was wrong to do so (living at home, no children, etc - or while doing an internship instead of working). Of course the response was always “Hey, I paid into it.” (btw, for a short time I did collect some partial unemployment, but since getting a massage gig where I make a little extra cash, have stopped).
The concept that, even though they did pay into it, the government doesn’t have the money to give you, never seemed to bother them.
This whole “Take everything you can get, play the system - isnt competition grand?!” mentality has us stealing the floorboards from under our own feet. But everybody is convinced they can get away with it. [/quote]
What you described has nothing at all to do with competition. That being said, that’s why the government should have never extended benefits longer than the standard 26 weeks. We know that people will take what they can from the government, making it easier doesn’t make any sense.
I doubt the increase in pay would keep up with the rising prices of everything else due to transportation and production cost increases.[/quote]
That’s why there is an offset in income taxes. But, of course, with the price of gsaoline rising, there is that problem, but as long as that price continues to rise, you’ll have the same phenomenon occurring with or without a gas consumption tax.
I think military cuts should be on the table (reasonably), but reforming Social Security and pension plans would be the keystone to any framework of solvency going forward. We’ve overpromised, and that stinks, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have duty to fix what we screw up for our kids and their kids.
And, while it is tough for seniors who have paid in for so long, they should be ashamed of themselves for being so obstinate about protecting future generations - although, I saw a blurb about a poll showing seniors’ support for Paul Ryan’s budget (which doesn’t touch SS, but in any event, does provide for some tough cuts).
What you described has nothing at all to do with competition. That being said, that’s why the government should have never extended benefits longer than the standard 26 weeks. We know that people will take what they can from the government, making it easier doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]
I think it does, indirectly. A competition based society breeds that “Take whatever you can get because if you dont someone else will and nobody is looking out for you but you” mentality.
I think military cuts should be on the table (reasonably), but reforming Social Security and pension plans would be the keystone to any framework of solvency going forward. We’ve overpromised, and that stinks, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have duty to fix what we screw up for our kids and their kids.
And, while it is tough for seniors who have paid in for so long, they should be ashamed of themselves for being so obstinate about protecting future generations - although, I saw a blurb about a poll showing seniors’ support for Paul Ryan’s budget (which doesn’t touch SS, but in any event, does provide for some tough cuts).[/quote]
I think it just proves your point that they support “tough cuts” that favor their interests.
IMO in doesn’t