How Radical Republicans Plan to Destroy America?

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings. Does anyone else get the distinct impression that a real growing problem in the US is the division of political parties and increasing willingness to do or say anything to provide spin that favors their respective party and/or hurts the other party whether it matches the truth or not? This becomes very apparent when there is a super statesman in office like Obama for whom the other party does not have a match.

 

[Engyo]

Greetings. Does anyone else get the distinct impression that a real growing problem in the US is the division of political parties and increasing willingness to do or say anything to provide spin that favors their respective party and/or hurts the other party whether it matches the truth or not? This becomes very apparent when there is a super statesman in office like Obama for whom the other party does not have a match.

My objection is when the partisanship gets in the way of doing the job they were hired for - which is the business of running the country. When "making the other side look bad" carries more weight in a political calculation than "representing their constituents' best interests", we are seriously screwed up.

If teachers are to be graded on performance, I think maybe we ought to do the same with congresscritters. Let's make them justify their existence: If they cannot show that they have made positive improvements for their constituents, then they would be ineligible to run again for the office they currently hold. Positive improvements passed that the particular congresscritter voted against would not count, or maybe should means points against him or her.

 

[Revoltingest]

Does anyone else get the distinct impression that a real growing problem in the US is the division of political parties and increasing willingness to do or say anything to provide spin that favors their respective party and/or hurts the other party whether it matches the truth or not? This becomes very apparent when there is a super statesman in office like Obama for whom the other party does not have a match.

Isn't the 2nd sentence an example of what you ask about in the 1st?
But yes, there certainly is a whole lotta histrionics going on.

 

[Smoke]

I've eaten my fair share of beans and cornbread. Trust me.

You had cornbread? :bow:

I lived on rice and beans for a long time. I really like rice and beans, though, so it wasn't too bad, although it probably left something to be desired as far as nutrition goes.

 

[Smoke]

Living in Florida, over half of the folks did not even keep a flashlight or candles much less a few cans of food in the house.

This is off-topic, but I love those LED flashlights. They kick out a lot of light and don't drain your batteries so fast. We have a bunch of them. We bought the first ones a year and a half ago and haven't had to change the batteries yet. We keep them in our trucks, in my shop, in John's office, in the tool shed -- basically, any place we might need one. I don't know how long it takes batteries to run down if you never use them, but I imagine they'd be better in an emergency than an old-fashioned flashlight.

 

[Smoke]

Why would people live their daily life like that? We have the modern conveniences, so we use them. That doesn't mean we wouldn't know what to do without them.

When I was in my twenties and trying to save money to move to New York, I had electricity but only used it to run the stove and refrigerator. No lights, no tv, nothing that used electricity except for the stove and fridge. It wasn't so hard overall; I tended to go to bed earlier and get up earlier, and that was okay. The only thing is that South Carolina summers are pretty rough without air conditioning. We didn't have a/c when I was a kid, but once you get used to it, it's rough to go without it.

I've also lived completely without electricity because I couldn't afford it, and that was harder because it wasn't by choice, but I can definitely do it if I need to. I hope I never need to again, though.

 

[Troublemane]

Unemployment remains unchanged at 9.5% in July, private companies only added 71,000 jobs

Heres the latest unemployment figures for July. The headline claims only 70,000 jobs were created last month, and lead you to think it was only slightly lower than expected. Then further down, in the article, it says the economy LOST 130,000 jobs last month.....WHAT???? So there were only 70,000 jobs created, but 130,000 lost? I wonder, do they mean the 70,000 created, were they NET jobs created AFTER the 130,000 lost? Or were there only 70k created and 130k lost, giving us a net loss of 65,000 jobs?

Also, further down, 15 million people were looking for work last month. Thats double the amount that were unemployed back in 2007.

Hmmmm...Id say the radical republicans are not the people you should be worried about! I think its the complete incompetancy of the current people running washington. The stimulus has not worked. Will not work. Never will work. Time to face facts.

 

[Mister_T]

You lefties don't sound much different from the birthers....just yelling from the other side of the aisle.
As the captain of the boat gleefully sails over the waterfall, just keep blaming the former captain's crew.

I'll be one of the first to admit that those on the left are far from sainthood and I don't think the entire Republican party has a plan to destroy the US, at least not intentionally, but Shadow Wolf seems to have a very valid point . Comparing Weiner's outburst though, at those who want to deny 9/11 volunteers paid medical coverage when they have no where else to turn, and birthers who disingenously still insist that the President is a "Muslim" (which as we know, is viewed quite negatively here in the US) who wasn't born in America, is a pretty obvious red-herring.

Maybe s there something I am missing, but can you explain as to how denying funding for 9/11 volunteers medical treatment for ailments caused from their selfless acts is not a vile and wretched act? If that was me, I'd be yelling at them too.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Isn't the 2nd sentence an example of what you ask about in the 1st?....

Only to a Republican... and intended to get a reaction.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You lefties don't sound much different from the birthers....just yelling from the other side of the aisle.

The birthers are beating a dead horse. My point was that Republicans are saying that closing a corporation tax loop hole = raising taxes = bad idea even though the extra money is paying for the health of those who risked their own lives and well being to rescue others during the 9/11 attacks. That bill was two good things, but they fought it. And the Republicans fighting unemployment extensions, and wanting the Bush tax cuts extended really shows whose side they are on. And it's not the people who carry the weight of society.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll be one of the first to admit that those on the left are far from sainthood and I don't think the entire Republican party has a plan to destroy the US, at least not intentionally, but Shadow Wolf seems to have a very valid point . Comparing Weiner's outburst though, at those who want to deny 9/11 volunteers paid medical coverage when they have no where else to turn, and birthers who disingenously still insist that the President is a "Muslim" (which as we know, is viewed quite negatively here in the US) who wasn't born in America, is a pretty obvious red-herring.

Maybe s there something I am missing, but can you explain as to how denying funding for 9/11 volunteers medical treatment for ailments caused from their selfless acts is not a vile and wretched act? If that was me, I'd be yelling at them too.

It was this language to which I object, "....then you are indeed a very vile and wretched person." This is to say there is no reasonable basis for the
other side in a policy dispute. It doesn't smell like balanced criticism when the argument for the opposing view isn't even mentioned, but rather only
cast in a demonized fashion. It's similar to opposing extending unemployment benefits - this too is not just the old good vs pure evil scenario. I
know from experience that people on unemployment are less likely to seek work as long as the bennies accrue. I've had new hires turn down a job,
explaining that their "unemployment hadn't run out yet". There is good reason to stop soaking employers, & end the payments.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It was this language to which I object, "....then you are indeed a very vile and wretched person." This is to say there is no reasonable basis for the
other side in a policy dispute.

There reasoning for fighting does make them vile and wretched because it shows they don't care about the people who need help, but they care about corporations who would loose a tax loophole and would have to pay more taxes.

I know from experience that people on unemployment are less likely to seek work as long as the bennies accrue. I've had new hires turn down a job, explaining that their "unemployment hadn't run out yet".

Those are what we call "welfare whores." I don't know if you can, but since turning down work while on unemployment is against the terms of receiving unemployment (At least in Indiana it is, but I'm assuming most states are like that), you might be able to turn those people in. Any intelligent person will know "I have 30 weeks of unemployment left. If I wait until I have a few weeks left, I might not have enough time to get a job before it runs out so I need to start looking now so I can try to avoid putting myself into a very bad situation."

 

[Revoltingest]

There reasoning for fighting does make them vile and wretched because it shows they don't care about the people who need help, but they care about corporations who would loose a tax loophole and would have to pay more taxes.

"....they don't care..." I'm skeptical that you have a window into their souls. Do you know what their reasoning is? That would be a good place to start.

Those are what we call "welfare whores." I don't know if you can, but since turning down work while on unemployment is against the terms of receiving unemployment, you might be able to turn those people in.

I've filed complaints & get ignored every time. But back to my original point, if you pay people not to work, then many will accept that position.
Hence, there is valid reasoning for denying further unemployment benefit extensions, cruel though that might appear on the surface.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you know what their reasoning is? That would be a good place to start.

They fought the bill because it would "raise taxes" to pay for the health care. However, had the bill been passed, it would not have raised taxes, but rather it would have closed one of the tax loopholes that allows for corporations to dodge taxes.

 

[Revoltingest]

They fought the bill because it would "raise taxes" to pay for the health care. However, had the bill been passed, it would not have raised taxes, but rather it would have closed one of the tax loopholes that allows for corporations to dodge taxes.

To "close a loophole" is a tax increase, albeit using more pandering language. To avoid tax increases while the economy is tanking strikes me
as a reasonable position, rather than evil or callous. Would you like your taxes raised right now by getting rid of one of your loopholes, like say...
deductibility of your state income tax on your 1040...or your home loan interest?

 

[Magic Man]

To "close a loophole" is a tax increase, albeit using more pandering language. To avoid tax increases while the economy is tanking strikes me
as a reasonable position, rather than evil or callous. Would you like your taxes raised right now by getting rid of one of your loopholes, like say...
deductibility of your state income tax on your 1040...or your home loan interest?

I know it's probably hard, but try to see it objectively here. What we're talking about is getting much-needed healthcare for people who risked their lives helping others on the worst day in America's recent history. I can understand being a little leery about raising taxes to do this, but I can't see not doing it for that reason. Then when you add in the fact that it's closing a loophole that allows corporations to avoid paying taxes by using an international address, there are only two sides, and the republican one is vile and wretched.

Yes, the economy is in the crapper. No, closing this loophole is not going to make it worse. No, it's not the same as changing how an individual person pays taxes. Also, if it's even true that your state income tax is deductible on your 1040, I'd be fine with closing that up, and why is the deductibility of your home loan interest a loophole? Those aren't exactly comparable to a corporation getting an overseas address just to avoid paying taxes, but, then again, I don't really expect honesty from you on such matters.

 

[Kathryn]

The birthers are beating a dead horse. My point was that Republicans are saying that closing a corporation tax loop hole = raising taxes = bad idea even though the extra money is paying for the health of those who risked their own lives and well being to rescue others during the 9/11 attacks. That bill was two good things, but they fought it. And the Republicans fighting unemployment extensions, and wanting the Bush tax cuts extended really shows whose side they are on. And it's not the people who carry the weight of society.

Loans given by the government always have enslaving strings attached to them. This was a big part of the debate about this bill. Furthermore, our government has proven quite succinctly that it doesn't operate well as a bank or lending institution. Sound financial principles and practices are not the government's strong suit.

Republicans want the "Bush tax cuts" extended because when they lapse, they will negatively affect the cash flow of nearly every single American who pays taxes. That's just what we need - less money in our own individual pockets during these rough economic times. I don't know who is spreading the TRIPE that the Bush tax cuts have only been for the wealthy - but that's all it is - TRIPE.

how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

Higher Tax Rates for All
You may have been led to believe that only individuals in the top two brackets will face higher federal income taxes when the Bush cuts go bye-bye. Not true! Unless Congress takes action and President Obama goes along, rates will go up for everyone -- not just a sliver of the wealthiest Americans. The current six rate brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. Just a few months ago, it seemed like a safe bet that Congress would make a fix to keep the existing 10%, 15%, 25% and 28% rate brackets to help out lower and middle-income folks. That bet is now looking iffy.

Higher Capital Gains and Dividends Taxes for All
Right now, the maximum federal rate on long-term capital gains and dividends is only 15%. Starting next year, the maximum rate on long-term gains will increase to 20%. The maximum rate on dividends will skyrocket to 39.6% unless action is taken to limit the rate to 20%, as the president has repeatedly promised. Plan on 39.6%, and hope I'm wrong.

Right now, an unbeatable 0% rate applies to long-term gains and dividends collected by folks in lowest two rate brackets of 10% and 15%. Starting next year, those folks will pay 10% on long-term gains and 15% and 28% on dividends (compared with 0% now) unless a change is made. Otherwise, taxes on long-term gains and dividends will go up for everyone.

Return of the Marriage Penalty
Right now, the standard deduction for married joint-filing couples is double the amount for singles. For this, we can thank the Bush tax cuts, which included several provisions to ease the so-called marriage penalty. The penalty can force a married couple to pay more in taxes than when they were single. Starting next year, the joint-filer standard deduction will fall back to about 167% of the amount for singles unless Congress takes action and the president approves. We don't know if that will happen. If not, lots of lower and middle-income couples will face higher tax bills.

Now, the bottom two tax brackets for married joint-filing couples are exactly twice as wide as those for singles. That ratio helps keep the marriage penalty from biting lower- and middle-income couples. Starting next year, the joint-filer tax brackets will contract, causing higher tax bills, unless a change is made.

Return of Phase-Out Rule for Itemized Deductions
Before the Bush tax cuts, a nasty phase-out rule could eliminate up to 80% of a higher-income individual's itemized deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations. The rule was gradually eased and finally eliminated this year. Next year, it will be back in full force unless Congress takes action -- which is unlikely. So if you itemize and have adjusted gross income above about $170,000 ($85,000 if you use married filing separate status), be ready for this phase-out rule to take a toll.

Return of Phase-Out Rule for Personal Exemptions
Before the Bush tax cuts, another nasty phase-out rule could eliminate some or all of a higher-income individual's personal exemption deductions. The rule was gradually cut back and finally eliminated this year. But it will be back with a vengeance next year unless Congress blocks it. So be ready for another tax hike if your adjusted gross income exceeds about $252,000 if you file jointly; about $168,000 if you're single; about $210,000 if you're a head of household; or about $126,000 if you use married filing separate status. (For 2010, personal exemption deductions are $3,650 each, and they will be about the same next year.)

The Bottom Line

The Bush tax cuts don't just offer tax relief to the wealthiest Americans. They offer it to just about anyone who pays federal income taxes. Their scheduled demise next year will raise the tax bill of nearly every taxpayer, unless Congress makes changes and the president jumps on board.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know it's probably hard, but try to see it objectively here.....

Woof!

 

[Kathryn]

The silence is deafening! Gasp - wait - Obama promised us we wouldn't have a tax increase unless we made over $250,000. You don't think he LIED to us, do you?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Would you like your taxes raised right now by getting rid of one of your loopholes, like say...
deductibility of your state income tax on your 1040...or your home loan interest?

It's not even comparable. I made $16,000 last year. These corporations made well over $1,000,000. I also don't take out any deductions on my taxes because I don't want to deal with filling out extra paper work. But the issue is is that even though I pay my taxes every year, these corporations have so many loopholes that they aren't paying nearly what they should.

Republicans want the "Bush tax cuts" extended because when they lapse, they will negatively affect the cash flow of nearly every single American who pays taxes. That's just what we need - less money in our own individual pockets during these rough economic times. I don't know who is spreading the TRIPE that the Bush tax cuts have only been for the wealthy - but that's all it is - TRIPE.

I know plenty of people who have more money in their pocket because of the Obama tax cut. The Bush tax cut had zero effect on what they paid in taxes. And the figures that I see that will be effected, over $100,000 a year, I don't feel sorry for. That is (of course depending on location) a ton of money, more than what is required to live a very comfortable life. And since the government has bills to pay, it's better that it come from higher earners than the middle and lower class. You can't tax the poor because they can't afford it, and if you tax the middle class they become poor. So really the higher earners are the only ones who can afford it.