Republican Explained...

[DaveH]

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.

[StangerBanger96]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Colin]

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.

[Colin]

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.

[Guest]

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?

[Guest]

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.

[Jim]

I disagree. Clinton was the shit.

[torbs]

Clinton = lets take money out of SS so it looks like I did a good job and made a surplus...

boo clinton

[Colin]

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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Colin]

Oh, and my "darwinism" is purely for my own entertainment. I really like old people. Except for the stinky ones. unless they're rich

[Guest]

just a great thread!

[Guest]

Bludvls4 wrote:
just a great thread!

I like to think this is because of me

[DaveH]

tjamz wrote:
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.

Flat tax, and no (or extremely few) deductions. Of course, I don't mean flat percentage, I mean everyone pays the same amount. I've yet to have anyone tell me what is more fair than that... we all share in this great country, we all pay the same amount of tax. Why should Chuck have to give the government more money than I do simply because he works hard and makes more money than me?

[91nbtsi]

DaveH wrote:
Flat tax, and no (or extremely few) deductions. Of course, I don't mean flat percentage, I mean everyone pays the same amount. I've yet to have anyone tell me what is more fair than that... we all share in this great country, we all pay the same amount of tax. Why should Chuck have to give the government more money than I do simply because he works hard and makes more money than me?

Agreed.

[Guest]

DaveH wrote:
Flat tax, and no (or extremely few) deductions. Of course, I don't mean flat percentage, I mean everyone pays the same amount. I've yet to have anyone tell me what is more fair than that... we all share in this great country, we all pay the same amount of tax. Why should Chuck have to give the government more money than I do simply because he works hard and makes more money than me?

IF that were the case and all existing gov't programs stayed in place and no new ones were ever created and we never went to war again or had to pay for the existing war (etc, etc, etc....) we would have to find a way to generate $2.6 trillion just to break even last year. We have 298,444,215 people in this country, including retired/children/nonworking people, etc...lets assume 2/3 of the population is capable of working (non-retired, etc..) I'm using this number as a base figure, I can look up specifics on how many people work here if the need arises. That leaves us with 198,962,810 people footing the bill. To make the number easier I will round up to 200,000,000. That means that each and every one of us will be required to pay $13,000 in taxes. That will put people out on the streets as for many of us (myself included not that long ago) we would have to pay in as much as we make annually ($6.50/hour is roughly equivalent to $13k/year). Figure it takes nearly that much a year just for living expenses (apt, car, food, etc...) and you've just successfully created the largest poverty class this country has ever seen.

Now tell me what is wrong with my idea Dave. I make $100, I pay $10 in taxes. I make $100,000 and I pay $10,000 in taxes (for example...using 10% just as a base...and its easy to calculate). That way every dollar that everyone earns is taxed exactly the same.

By your standards Dave, everyone who works hard at what they do should be paid the same amount of wages. Doesn't matter if they are milking cows or running the country. If they are in the top 1% of productivity in their careers they should all get paid the same, right? Wouldn't that be fair? I mean, they are all working hard to run a successful business and they all have to pay the same taxes so if they are the best at what they do, they should get the same pay as a CEO, President, Real Estate Tycoon, etc... That sounds more like Socialism than anything I've heard from the left. :icon_thumleft:

[DaveH]

tjamz wrote:
IF that were the case and all existing gov't programs stayed in place

So basically what you've pointed out in your first paragraph is that the wealthy people are paying for basically everything (governmentwise). I think the answer is to eliminate Govt spending, of course no politician seems to want to do that.

tjamz wrote:
Now tell me what is wrong with my idea Dave. I make $100, I pay $10 in taxes. I make $100,000 and I pay $10,000 in taxes (for example...using 10% just as a base...and its easy to calculate). That way every dollar that everyone earns is taxed exactly the same.

My problem with that tax structure is that you are basically redistributing wealth. That is not the governments job. How do you justify taking more money from some people and less from others? Use you and me again as a example, why should one of us be forced to give more money to the government than the other? It makes no sense.

tjamz wrote:
By your standards Dave, everyone who works hard at what they do should be paid the same amount of wages.

LOL at Chuck on this, what sort of analogy is that? People earn what they are worth, or what the company they work for feel they are worth (except with unions). Because they work hard doesn't mean they aren't non-productive or they make only a small profit for the company they work for. The government does not have the job of regulating wages.

[Tad218]

DaveH wrote:
Why should Chuck have to give the government more money than I do simply because he works hard and makes more money than me?
I kinda thought that too before...why should someone be punished for being successful? But there's some families that work their asses off for $50,000 a year or less and there's no way you can put them in the same tax category as a family making $100,000 plus. It seems unfair in ways but all types if employees are needed and you cant make unlivable conditions for people with below average incomes.