Republican Explained...
-
It's not calling democrats lazy Joel, it's saying Democrats want to punish the prudent and give to the lazy.
-
Good try young grasshopper.
My firm belief is NOT that everyone should have the same as everyone else, you are thinking of Socialism/Communism, I DO however believe that EVERYONE should pay the exact same percentage of taxes. Think of it this way:
Republicans like to claim that the richest 2% of the population pay for 90% (or 95, depending who you listen to) of the taxes in this country. Sounds harsh, doesn't it? Until you realize that those same 2% control 98% of the money, so 3 to 8% of the money is not being taxed equally. I'm ok with a personal exemption on what is required to be paid ($3300 per taxpayer and dependent or whatever) and I am also ok with tax right offs on straight up business expenses, but NOT when those business expenses are to build a $3million house for a CEO making $10million a year already as an incentive to stay on board or to come work for said company....but guess what, that DOES happen. And it's legal.
Which brings me to my next HUGE argument, why is there a cap on Social Security tax (after $90k/year you don't pay any extra)? I'm not a huge fan of Social Security, but for many people it is the only "retirement" income they have. It is the one thing that is supposed to be guaranteed and the one thing that anyone who lives long enough to be eligible can collect. So why are we capping the taxable income amount for SS? Now, before you neo-cons decide to get into the argument for privatived soc sec, let me say that I AM in favor of it, but what do we do about those who have recently retired or are about to retire in the next 5-10 years? They can't realistically expect to have their retirement plans up to even the same level as the Soc Sec plans levels in that short of time...and certainly not with a guaranteed lifetime annuitized payout. Again, I am in favor of privatized accounts, but not at the expense of completely cutting off the people who have paid their whole lives for these benefits.
-
Alright well this was more or less meant as a joke thread but Chuck decided to go ranting
jk Chuck I actually agree with what you have to say for the most part.And Jim...The majority of Republicans aren't exactly pleased with Bush either. The country would be as FUBAR'd as it is right now if Kerry had been elected too though so it was kind of a lose lose election last time. At least Obama and McCain/Guliani are more moderate. Although I've heard obama is pretty extreme on some stuff he's lightyears better than Clinton would ever be for this damn country.
-
Social security is a scam, it was just another way for the govt to get their hands on more of our money. If they would have actually set up a account for everyone who pays in and then put that money in there, then it would have been legitimate (altho it's still a stupid idea IMO). But the money was just tossed in with all the other money and spent foolishly as most of our tax money is. If the govt would have put aside that money the people who have already paid in would be covered without worry. Instead they are now relying on us the younger generation to come up with money for the elderly peoples social security payment. I spell that sca*m. :icon_cyclops_ani:
The tax code is also a scam, it's just another way to redistribute wealth the way it's set up.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Yeah I believe social security is fine for the next 10 years or so. There is a LARGE sum of money, I want to say 2 Trillion dollars, in reserved money that is borrowed from the social security fund for other (worthless) government projects. The system itself won't need to dip into that debted money for like 5 years or so I think. The numbers are wrong but I know the system isn't going to fail within 10 years, probably closer to 20 is when you have to worry.
-
I agree with everything that Dave said regarding Soc Sec, and if we could get the politicians to put the money back we would be fine. We could allow an opt-out for Soc Sec (and still allow those in who WANT to be in) going forward, it would be tough to get it to go retroactive however, meaning its not likely they'll give the money back or allow you to roll it into some other retirement option.
I still stand by my idea of a better tax code to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of the taxes so that some of the crazy loopholes get filled.
-
Also, clinton is one of the best presidents to come through the white house.
Ever.
PineInchNenis69 wrote:
Alright well this was more or less meant as a joke thread but Chuck decided to go ranting jk Chuck I actually agree with what you have to say for the most part.And Jim...The majority of Republicans aren't exactly pleased with Bush either. The country would be as FUBAR'd as it is right now if Kerry had been elected too though so it was kind of a lose lose election last time. At least Obama and McCain/Guliani are more moderate. Although I've heard obama is pretty extreme on some stuff he's lightyears better than Clinton would ever be for this damn country.
You should do your research.
-
MethodlesS wrote:
If your're old and can provide no service, or have no one to support you, it means you were not productive or mindful enough when you were younger. You deserve what you get. Boo SS.I disagree whole-heartedly. Maybe in 20-30 years I can agree with what you've said, but for todays senior citizens who have probably worked HARDER than most of us on this board combined and were counting on Soc Sec to help them as they grew older as a retirement supplement only to find that their prescription drugs would increase nearly 400% in 20 years, medical costs have skyrocketed as well. If that's the scenario YOU are planning for, then I suggest you have about $40,000 if you plan on having children 20 years from now...and thats with ZERO complications. Seriously, who could have anticipated this 40 year ago when medical prices were (for the most part) extremely stable?
Only in recent times have we seen things skyrocket in price like this. To say that our senior citizens should have seen this coming is like saying the Bush administration should have seen the terrorists attacks on NYC coming. I guess that means that they were not productive and mindful enough to care for the citizens of this country and that the US got what it deserved? That is YOUR logic, right?
-
MethodlesS wrote:
Also, clinton is one of the best presidents to come through the white house.Ever.
I disagree, I think it is just our current president that makes Clinton look like a super genius
PineInchNenis69 wrote:
Alright well this was more or less meant as a joke thread but Chuck decided to go ranting jk Chuck I actually agree with what you have to say for the most part.And Jim...The majority of Republicans aren't exactly pleased with Bush either. The country would be as FUBAR'd as it is right now if Kerry had been elected too though so it was kind of a lose lose election last time. At least Obama and McCain/Guliani are more moderate. Although I've heard obama is pretty extreme on some stuff he's lightyears better than Clinton would ever be for this damn country.
MethodlesS wrote:
You should do your research.Not sure what he should research. After the recent elections, the republicans have for the most part severed many ties with the current adminstration. As for the candidates listed, i could live with any of the 3 as president. And all three are extreme on some issues that they are passionate about....actually, I'd LOVE to see an olive branch extended if Obama or McCain wins to the loser, offering them a VP seat. That sort of gesture would do more to soothe relationships politically than anything else I could ever imagine.
-
The research part was refering to the cliton admins "results". I say results because i can't think of the word im really looking for. I'll edit later.
I disagree, I think it is just our current president that makes Clinton look like a super genius
^i'm rather sure that the clinton admin is commonly ranked within the top ten or fifteen as most productive etc by panels of the politcally inclined.
Side note: Nixon is also in there.I guess i'd agree if it was purely about clinton, but since each president comes with it's own admin, thats what i'm going by.
anyway my 2 cents
-
torbs wrote:
Clinton = lets take money out of SS so it looks like I did a good job and made a surplus...boo clinton
Umm....wrong. For one, the House/Senate adjust the money, so if that were true, its the Republicans again. Secondly we WERE running a surplus economy AND had projected money in SS to take us through 2057.
-
MethodlesS wrote:
The research part was refering to the cliton admins "results". I say results because i can't think of the word im really looking for. I'll edit later.^i'm rather sure that the clinton admin is commonly ranked within the top ten or fifteen as most productive etc by panels of the politcally inclined.
Side note: Nixon is also in there.I guess i'd agree if it was purely about clinton, but since each president comes with it's own admin, thats what i'm going by.
anyway my 2 cents
Ok, i'll give you that one. I guess I read into it too much. Oh, and I agree, Nixon was probably one of the best presidents this country has seen.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login