Republican Explained...

[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.

[Guest]

1. I agree, lets reduce gov't spending. Unfortunately, you are right, no one will cut programs that help their constituents.

2. But, everyone is paying the same percentage regardless of their profession/wealth class. The system you are suggesting is similar to the one that caused people to immigrate to the united states in the first place. They felt they were being taxed at an unfair rate in comparison with the "rich". Let's face it, its not unbelievably hard to make $100,000/year. Most successful sales people can do that fairly easily. But what separates those making 100,000 a year and 1,000,000+ a year as a CEO/executive of a fortune 500 company? Likely it is who you know, family name (Bill Ford anyone?), incredible luck, and severe ass kissing....some people rise to the top, but not as many as the other 4 ways. Working for a multi billion dollar corporation, I can tell you that the upper echelon of management will do just about anything to make sure that no one else will get promoted or warrant a huge promotion to upper management (insanely high quotas, cut in pay for top producers, etc...), instead there is a constant hiring from OUTSIDE the industry (see "who you know") It's not like you can take a class at NDSU/UND titled "CEO 101" or any other class that will tell you how to make it to the top of any given industry. This is kinda getting off topic, but what I'm getting at is that I don't understand why they shouldn't pay at least the same amount for every dollar they make as I do.

3. I agree with you there Dave, I mostly brought that up just to get a rise from you but also to point out why I think your version of the "Flat Tax" is crazy. I was demonstrating absurdity by being absurd....little something I learned from el-rushbo

[91nbtsi]

Dave for president!

[DaveH]

I don't think how people make money makes any difference. If they want to kiss butt, lay bricks, sell drugs, manage people, etc. it doesn't matter (ok, well as long as it's legal). If someone makes a million dollars a year, good for them. Anyway, we could go round and round on this.

I'm too lazy to figure this out, so maybe Chuck will. What would the flat tax rate have to be to make sure there is enough tax revenue to cover expenditures? 10%? 15%? 25%?

tjamz wrote:
2. But, everyone is paying the same percentage regardless of their profession/wealth class. The system you are suggesting is similar to the one that caused people to immigrate to the united states in the first place. They felt they were being taxed at an unfair rate in comparison with the "rich". Let's face it, its not unbelievably hard to make $100,000/year. Most successful sales people can do that fairly easily. But what separates those making 100,000 a year and 1,000,000+ a year as a CEO/executive of a fortune 500 company? Likely it is who you know, family name (Bill Ford anyone?), incredible luck, and severe ass kissing....some people rise to the top, but not as many as the other 4 ways. Working for a multi billion dollar corporation, I can tell you that the upper echelon of management will do just about anything to make sure that no one else will get promoted or warrant a huge promotion to upper management (insanely high quotas, cut in pay for top producers, etc...), instead there is a constant hiring from OUTSIDE the industry (see "who you know") It's not like you can take a class at NDSU/UND titled "CEO 101" or any other class that will tell you how to make it to the top of any given industry. This is kinda getting off topic, but what I'm getting at is that I don't understand why they shouldn't pay at least the same amount for every dollar they make as I do.

[StangerBanger96]

My joke thread turned into a political debate thread...who wouldn't have guessed?

[CivicEX7777777]

MethodlesS wrote:
Also, clinton is one of the best presidents to come through the white house.

Ever.

You should do your research.

Hell Ya!

[Guest]

DaveH wrote:
I'm too lazy to figure this out, so maybe Chuck will. What would the flat tax rate have to be to make sure there is enough tax revenue to cover expenditures? 10%? 15%? 25%?

The GDP of the US is $12,980,000,000,000 with a labor force of 151,800,000 (thanks wikipedia!!) and our gov't spent $2,600,000,000,000 last year.

so, 2,600,000,000,000 / 12,980,000,000,000 = 20% which is 5% lower than I paid this year.

I guess I didn't need the labor force total number for that equation, but I found it so I thought I'd post it.