The Republicans are the Problem

[Heathen Hammer]

I was just bein facetious; it was a smirk moment that a Republican was asking why this perfectly legit concept had not become a legal regulation

I'm in agreement with much of what you've written about it all.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I was just bein facetious; it was a smirk moment that a Republican was asking why this perfectly legit concept had not become a legal regulation

I'm in agreement with much of what you've written about it all.

There is still hope for this country when different people find common ground. Yes the rich are not investing in jobs so screw them, lets close all the loopholes instead of raising taxes. It does no good to raise taxes on people who are paying their fair share while the fat cats skate around the tax obligation.

Yes, the American worker needs a higher wage. The thing is, not everyone is worth more money. If we quit protecting the unproductive and start rewarding the folks who truly do the heavy lifting, I believe things will get better.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Hm, I am always wary of this conflict of interests I find myself in: I don't think the unproductive should be given something. However, I also do not see any excuse for the lowering of wages; if somebody's making a wage they must be doing something. However, I am conflicted in that I believe, as I think I've hinted, that 'welfare' is not a dirty word. And it is also not a charity if a person on it ever had a tax-paying job in their life. I understand that we simply have to have a welfare system, and an unemployment system, and a medicaid system. We cannot have a country where people simply croak in the street. A portion of the populace are nuts, my friends, and they would not be alive at all if we did not have a nanny-state in some form to at least do more than their own families do, which is to take them in and in some cases actually force them to eat and bathe and sleep. Not all humans are capable of finding or keeping a job; not all can even exist without supervision.

And the sad fact is that we will always have scam artists who want to find ways to game a system. It's just going to happen, and we cannot eliminate the systems because they are not foolproof against grifters.

If that were the case the banking industry would have to be scrapped. Oh, and our political system. x2!

I am all for better wages for skilled workers [tho some self interest may be involved ]. The working class never is able to keep up with inflation. Prices always go up faster and more often than income. But how do we make that a fair event while keeping the businesses they work for viable?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hm, I am always wary of this conflict of interests I find myself in: I don't think the unproductive should be given something. However, I also do not see any excuse for the lowering of wages; if somebody's making a wage they must be doing something.

I agree. This goes back to what I was saying earlier to 1robin about the guy he knew who was making $40 an hour for changing light bulbs in federal court houses. I worked at the National Gallery Of Art for many years in the Facilities Dept. and while changing light bulbs was a very important part of our job (considering the various types of art displayed)...we were the behind the scenes go getters. We made deliveries of various supplies and equipment throughout the galleries and offices and a host of "other duties to be assigned"...The pay reflected the job as well as taking into account many other factors such as the cost of living. Now that I work for local government as an IT professional I still have the (other duties to be assigned) in my contract which means my boss can and has assigned my tasks that aren't necessarily related to my skill set.

I've seem the minimum wage go from $3.50 per hr. at McDonald's to the current $7.25 per hr. It's not that flipping burgers has gotten harder...It's partly due to the fact that in this economy the lower wages seems to be as about the same as being on welfare.

:sad:

 

[1robin]

I agree. This goes back to what I was saying earlier to 1robin about the guy he knew who was making $40 an hour for changing light bulbs in federal court houses. I worked at the National Gallery Of Art for many years in the Facilities Dept. and while changing light bulbs was a very important part of our job (considering the various types of art displayed)...we were the behind the scenes go getters. We made deliveries of various supplies and equipment throughout the galleries and offices and a host of "other duties to be assigned"...The pay reflected the job as well as taking into account many other factors such as the cost of living. Now that I work for local government as an IT professional I still have the (other duties to be assigned) in my contract which means my boss can and has assigned my tasks that aren't necessarily related to my skill set.

I've seem the minimum wage go from $3.50 per hr. at McDonald's to the current $7.25 per hr. It's not that flipping burgers has gotten harder...It's partly due to the fact that in this economy the lower wages seems to be as about the same as being on welfare.

:sad:

Why is it that the same jobs when preformed by a government worker are worth almost twice as much pay as in the private sector? It's because big government democrats have not run out of other peoples money to spend yet. They ran out of SS money to steal so they created the health care bill to fill a new coffer that can rob. If they keep going self destruction is unavoidable.

 

[Sunstone]

Why is it that the same jobs when preformed by a government worker are worth almost twice as much pay as in the private sector? It's because big government democrats have not run out of other peoples money to spend yet. They ran out of SS money to steal so they created the health care bill to fill a new coffer that can rob. If they keep going self destruction is unavoidable.

By the same token, neither party seems to have run out of tax cuts for the rich yet (although a few Democrats, like Obama, are paying lip service to the idea of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, etc, I don't quite believe they will manage to accomplish much). Does that concern you? Or are you only concerned when government redistributes wealth to the poor and middle class, but not when it redistributes wealth to the rich?

 

[Sunstone]

This just in

DEAR AMERICA: You Should Be Mad As Hell About This [CHARTS] - Business Insider

Good luck trying to debate with facts.

 

[1robin]

By the same token, neither party seems to have run out of tax cuts for the rich yet (although a few Democrats, like Obama, are paying lip service to the idea of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, etc, I don't quite believe they will manage to accomplish much). Does that concern you? Or are you only concerned when government redistributes wealth to the poor and middle class, but not when it redistributes wealth to the rich?

First of all let me make clear I am in no way rich and I have no special love for the rich. However a poor man never gave me a job. The more the government takes from the rich the less they have to grow and hire. This class envy crap might sound good but it results in devestation. I do not want to regulate Bill Gates or Donald Trump, I want to unleash them and all others like them. Not because I like them personally but because it results in good things for the rest of us. Being that the richest 1% already pay 36% of the taxes I disagree with your premise. Acting out of some unjustified bias or envy against the rich only hurts us. The money in this country didn't go away when this recession started. The ones who have it are so worried about what Obamma is going to require them to do next they are not spending and investing it. How do you justify that besides creating tens of thousands of jobs and the taxes collected on those jobs plus contributing an amount in personal taxes greater than a hundred me or yous that Bill Gates owes you more. I saw a graph the other day if we took everything the richest 5% have (I mean everything) that would run our bloated, inefficient, socialistic government far a month or two. Taxing the rich won't fix Washington's ungodly spending problem no matter how much anyone hates them. This class warfare crap is a meaningless diversion.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Why is it that the same jobs when preformed by a government worker are worth almost twice as much pay as in the private sector?

This should be self explanatory. Companies are in the business of making money. The less you can pay an employee while at the same time giving said employee enough work/responsibilities that would normally be divided amongst 2, 3, sometimes even 4 people means the more money your company can save. This is probably one of the main reasons many, many companies outsource....not to mention the tax advantages. So it's with good reason workers in this country are paid a decent wage commensurate with the job function(s) they do as well as the miscellaneous ("other duties to be assigned").

Let's be real here for a moment. Before taxes someone making $40 an hour is grossing $6200 a month. How much do you think is left over when all of his deductions are taken? Try this calculator (Calculator: Gross to Net / Net to Gross). You'll notice he's not taking home a lot of money. Even if we gestimate he's married and his wife's income is close to or equal to his. About time you factor in her taxes being taken out, their mortgage, car note(s), household bills, groceries and other expenses you'll quickly discover there's more month left over at the end of the money.


Government, regardless of party, spends money. So we don't typically treat or view them as a business. This whole notion that Dems want big government is a fallacy. In order for government to even be considered "big government" repubs have a say in it. Big government isn't a one party problem.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Big government isn't a one party problem

You're right, it's a 2-party problem! I wish we had more parties strong enough to possibly get someone in office that actually represents the people, and not just the rich people!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You're right, it's a 2-party problem! I wish we had more parties strong enough to possibly get someone in office that actually represents the people, and not just the rich people!

I agree.

 

[1robin]

You're right, it's a 2-party problem! I wish we had more parties strong enough to possibly get someone in office that actually represents the people, and not just the rich people!

I somewhat agree but the Democrats are by far the worse party when it comes to this issue. However the republicans have not been the shining example of representative democracy either.

 

[1robin]

This should be self explanatory. Companies are in the business of making money. The less you can pay an employee while at the same time giving said employee enough work/responsibilities that would normally be divided amongst 2, 3, sometimes even 4 people means the more money your company can save. This is probably one of the main reasons many, many companies outsource....not to mention the tax advantages. So it's with good reason workers in this country are paid a decent wage commensurate with the job function(s) they do as well as the miscellaneous ("other duties to be assigned").

Let's be real here for a moment. Before taxes someone making $40 an hour is grossing $6200 a month. How much do you think is left over when all of his deductions are taken? Try this calculator (Calculator: Gross to Net / Net to Gross). You'll notice he's not taking home a lot of money. Even if we gestimate he's married and his wife's income is close to or equal to his. About time you factor in her taxes being taken out, their mortgage, car note(s), household bills, groceries and other expenses you'll quickly discover there's more month left over at the end of the money.


Government, regardless of party, spends money. So we don't typically treat or view them as a business. This whole notion that Dems want big government is a fallacy. In order for government to even be considered "big government" repubs have a say in it. Big government isn't a one party problem.

Wages are supposed to be driven by supply and demand not by collective bargaining. There is no legitamate reason for this disparity and there is absolutely no way to establish that the taxpayer is responsible for paying a guy 40$ an hour to change light bulbs when he would make 10$ hr in the private sector. Capitalism works, when it is subverted by the government then failure is expected and soon realised. You seem to suggest that the guy who makes 40$ hr to change bulbs isn't paid enough. Amazing. If that logic is ever universally applied as it is being suggested even now we are doomed.

 

[Penumbra]

OK, fair enough. I think we both want a fiscally responsible party and neither of us can find one with the exception of the Clinton administration. Yes, taxes where higher, but he was working on welfare reform as well. Another thing that helped Clinton was we had a social security surplus, (thanks to Regans tax increase) That increased the general fund and paid down the current debt of the time but we had future responsibilities to retirees that where not really expressed on the books.

Still, I see your point that while I prospered the administation of the time was racking up debt. The thing is, Obama has racked up more debt in 3 years than Bush did in eight. My question would be, who is getting ahead now?

The sad truth of it all is we all are going to have to rely on the government less and pay the government more. We cannot sustain the baby boomers at current medicare levels. We have all kinds of jobs that go unfilled that no one qualifys for, our current education system sucks. Obama wants to protect teachers when they are doing a poor job of educating due to policies like tenure.

We need to invest in schools, close tax loopholes and pass a balanced budget amendment. Clinton used to force the government to shut down to get budgets passed. Obama has not got a budget even passed in the last two years not that he would stick to it any way.

-Clinton signed into law tax increases enacted by Congress. Obama and the Democrats tried even to return somewhat to those Clinton levels of taxation, and the current Congress said no. So we both seem to have a degree of understanding that the Clinton Administration along with the Congresses he worked with did pretty well with the budget, but currently the Democrats are willing to return to those levels and Republicans are not. Even the furthest left group in Senate and House, the Progressive Caucus with Bernie Sanders, has tax rates that are a bit higher than in Clinton's time but not by a whole lot. But the moderate Dems? They pretty much just aim for what Clinton had, which worked.

-The balanced budget amendment that was supported by House Republicans in 2011 made no sense. It had terrible ramifications and partisan politics added as baggage. First, as baggage, it included parts locking government spending to levels lower than they have been historically, and prohibiting tax increases. None of that should be linked to a law about balancing the budget; that's partisan. Second, for the actual balance part, it called for a yearly balance. But that would mean that government spending would have to be as erratic as government revenue is when recessions hit. So if revenue takes a big hit of like 20% as it did in this recession, lawmakers would have to immediately cut 20% out of things like Social Security, Defense, domestic programs, etc. They'd be doing huge cuts right during economic weakness, by law, every time, which is the opposite of what most economists tend to advise.

-Smarter balanced budget laws, like those in Switzerland and in some other countries, avoid this problem because they force a balanced budget over a business cycle rather than over a year. Depending on the state of economic growth, it allows for deficits during weakness, and forces surpluses during strength, so that spending is less erratic than revenue, and the budget has a long term structural balance. The 2011 balanced budget amendment wasn't nearly this thought out; it was just a partisan statement.

Ok, you accuse me of baseless attacks on the left, just look at this threads title.

I hope you feel I have addressed everything, (I'm sure I did not).

The article states that the Republicans are the problem and supports that argument with four pages of facts. If you're basing your interpretation of the meaning of that article on the title alone, I'd recommend reading the article, if you haven't. The post of yours I commented on, and that article, share little in common.

I did ask a valid question though, when the rich have gave all their wealth to a wasteful government on a bunch of programs, what are we going to do when the rich folks money runs out? Live within our means then? Why not now? Kennedy said it best, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". JFK would be a Republican if he where still alive I believe just as you believe Ike would be a Dem by todays standards.

The bottom line for me is Obama wants to do more for some and take more from others. The only way Obama is going to balance anything is if we where taxed at 100%. If he raised taxes, he would borrow even more and get us deeper in debt.

In other words, Obama never seen a dollar he did not want to spend. He has spent more than any other President but yet I don't see anyone getting ahead. The truth is, he wants to spend even more on his failed policies.

Rick, the numbers show that this argument isn't valid. Nobody worth listening to is calling for taking all the money from the rich. Taxing 2% of wealth while they grow wealth by 6-10% per year, still results in increased wealth.

Take a look at these numbers. These aren't being presented to just to prove you wrong in some internet debate; I am genuinely interested in your view of this information and how it relates to your concern regarding rich folks running out of money.

Wealth Distribution in America (multiple sources):
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=....edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf

Tax Distribution in America (a highly conservative source, the Heritage Foundation, that if anything, will make the numbers favor your side, but I'll use them anyway):
A Comparison of Tax Distribution Tables How Missing or Incomplete Information Distorts Perspectives

The observations:
-The top 1% own 33.8%-35% of the wealth depending on the source used, and pay 33.89% of federal taxes according to the fiscally conservative source.
-The top 10% own 71.5-73% of the wealth depending on the source used, and pay 64.89% of the federal taxes according to the fiscally conservative source.
-The bottom 50% own around 2.5% of the wealth, and pay 3.97% of federal taxes according to the fiscally conservative source.

Now since the information varies by date, the real numbers aren't truly presented to that level of precision, but the basics are pretty straightforward: as a percentage of wealth, taxes are fairly flat and actually mildly regressive.

When state taxation is added in, with usually flatter income taxes and flat sales tax that are regressive in terms of income and wealth in practice, it's likely even more regressive.

Further, according to sources like the CIA, the United States has among the highest income inequality in the developed world.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

In addition, over the last several decades, tax revenue as a percentage of total tax revenue from personal income has remained largely flat, while payroll tax income has substantially increased, and corporate taxation has decreased.
What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

In other words, a larger and larger share of total tax revenue is coming from payroll taxes. The people that pay much of the payroll taxes are the employees, not the rich.

The idea that there is class warfare from the poor towards the rich is backwards from what the numbers show: that the U.S. has a huge level of wealth concentration compared to other developed nations, that tax revenue compared to total wealth is flat or regressive, and that an increased tax burden has put towards payroll taxes- if there is class warfare going on, Warren Buffett was right; it's from the top down.

The concept of taxation making the rich folks run out of money is far, far away from the numbers.

I truly believe Mitt Romney will reduce government spending and get folks back to work. He is the man to get the economy going once again. Now if we could just get that balanced budget amendment in place we could address paying down the debt. I would pay more taxes for that to happen. The main thing is, the government need to do less and the American people need to do more.

Romney is pro-war, pro-defense spending, and certainly doesn't seem the man for the job of promoting a fair tax system.

 

[Penumbra]

Personally I think it's ABSURD to take things like pension plans and retirement funds and immediately place them into a market where there is ANY kind of risk. the depositors assume all the risk and some banking idiot plays with the money and if it disappears, nothing happens to that guy. It's just insane.

There's always risk. If a company internalizes a whole pension fund, the risk is all centralized in the health of one company. If a pension fund is invested in various securities, then it has market risk. If it's government-supported, it'll have terrible returns and relies on external political decisions.

Personally, I'd prefer to have zero of my net worth in any pension fund. My employer does offer a pension as part of the compensation, and I dislike that. I'd rather be given that portion of my compensation up front so I can invest it myself for my lifetime- it would be worth way more that way. Having X% of my employer compensation invested in low-return investments, stinks.

There's the same issue with the social security system. It locks a considerable portion of a person's income into a low-returning investment.

I saw a graph the other day if we took everything the richest 5% have (I mean everything) that would run our bloated, inefficient, socialistic government far a month or two. .

I'd be interested in seeing that graph. The math seems to be grossly incorrect.

Total American household net worth is $62.9 trillion.
Source: Household Net Worth in U.S. Increases by Most Since 2004 - Bloomberg

The top 5% of people own a minimum of around 45% and likely more towards 60% of total American net worth.
Source showing top 5% own 62% of wealth: Household Net Worth in U.S. Increases by Most Since 2004 - Bloomberg
Source showing top 1% owns 33.8% and the top 10% own more than 70% of wealth: Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider
Source showing top 20% own 84% of wealth: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=....edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf

Therefore, if top 5% of people own 50% of the wealth (which seems to be lower than the reality), then the top 5% own approximately $31.5 trillion.

Total spending in 2012 is estimated at $3.8 trillion. Therefore, the wealth of the top 5% could run the federal government for over 8 years at this level, which is 50 to 100 times as long as the month or two you claimed.

If we add all state and local governments into that equation, total spending for 2012 is estimated at $6.3 trillion, meaning the top 5% could run literally all government spending for over 4.5 years, which is 25-50 times as long as the month or two you claimed.

And all of that assumes zero taxation over the period, literally running the government directly on those funds.

Source for spending: Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2012 - Charts Tables History

I don't think all the wealth should be taken from anyone, but the reason I tend to point out macroeconomic things is because most people I run into seem to have estimates regarding the macroeconomic situation that are orders of magnitude off.

 

[Penumbra]

Let's be real here for a moment. Before taxes someone making $40 an hour is grossing $6200 a month. How much do you think is left over when all of his deductions are taken? Try this calculator (Calculator: Gross to Net / Net to Gross). You'll notice he's not taking home a lot of money. Even if we gestimate he's married and his wife's income is close to or equal to his. About time you factor in her taxes being taken out, their mortgage, car note(s), household bills, groceries and other expenses you'll quickly discover there's more month left over at the end of the money.

I don't disagree with all the rest of your posted content, but I disagree with this.

If two people making $40/hr can't generate a very large monthly surplus, then they're almost certainly making enormous financial mistakes, or living way above their means, or choose to have way too many children compared to what they expected to be able to support.

 

[1robin]

I don't disagree with all the rest of your posted content, but I disagree with this.

If two people making $40/hr can't generate a very large monthly surplus, then they're almost certainly making enormous financial mistakes, or living way above their means, or choose to have way too many children compared to what they expected to be able to support.

To the democratic mindset there is no such concrete thing as enough. There is only an abstract concept of enough which is defined as always more than they are getting. There is also no logical justification for that concept beyond they want it, and fell they "deserve" it because they exist. With the caveat that others have it and they are entitled to it where as the ones who earned it are not. I would like to see that codified.

 

[Storm]

To the democratic mindset there is no such concrete thing as enough. There is only an abstract concept of enough which is defined as always more than they are getting. There is also no logical justification for that concept beyond they want it, and fell they "deserve" it because they exist. With the caveat that others have it and they are entitled to it where as the ones who earned it are not. I would like to see that codified.

Dude, you clearly don't understand "the Democratic mindset," so would you PLEASE stop spouting off about it?

I mean, how would you like it if I kept spamming up the thread with posts containing nothing but "Republicans are all greedy, selfish ******** who don't care about anything but screwing the poor to get a new Rolex"?

 

[1robin]

Dude, you clearly don't understand "the Democratic mindset," so would you PLEASE stop spouting off about it?

I mean, how would you like it if I kept spamming up the thread with posts containing nothing but "Republicans are all greedy, selfish ******** who don't care about anything but screwing the poor to get a new Rolex"?

It was because that several democrats were doing just that that I enetered this discussion. If you will look over my previous posts you will see I gave plenty of evidence for my position. In fact I had to write the democrat off that started it because he never ever would post a reson for his claims. If this is the only post of mine you have read I understand your position. Just wait I always bring bookooo facts quite regularly. I know my statement is not accurate for every democrat but how would you show it as inaccurate concerning the democratic politicians and and activists in general, just curious. Like I said point taken but review my posts and just wait, I don't do that often. Mainly it's a little comic relief.

 

[Storm]

It was because that several democrats were doing just that that I enetered this discussion. If you will look over my previous posts you will see I gave plenty of evidence for my position. In fact I had to write the democrat off that started it because he never ever would post a reson for his claims. If this is the only post of mine you have read I understand your position. Just wait I always bring bookooo facts quite regularly. I know my statement is not accurate for every democrat but how would you show it as inaccurate concerning the democratic politicians and and activists in general, just curious. Like I said point taken but review my posts and just wait, I don't do that often. Mainly it's a little comic relief.

I've read several of your posts, though not the entire thread. They're all in the same vein - we're selfish, lazy, entitled brats who want to get rich off your hard work. Not a fact in sight.

As for politicians, 95% of them care about one thing and one thing only: their careers. The other 5% rarely get far.

Lastly, it's not so much comic relief as trolling.