View Full Version : The Republican Love Fest After the Tax Bill was passed.......
Anyone see that on the news? It was actually embarrassing. And some even said "He's a great leader". Huh? Who are they talking about??
Such a great leader that he admitted that it was mainly about the corporate tax cut and not middle class tax cuts. While obvious to anyone with a brain it's kind of sad that he's too stupid to stick with the approved lies...errr, talking points.
I think this is a great thing for the Republicans, and the country at large. This legislation will enable probably 75-80% of the country to take home more money next year, which is a good thing. The funny thing is that the Democrats will spend that year telling voters if they just vote for them in November, they'll be happy to take all that extra money back.
I say good luck to them, and would someone please pass the popcorn.
Williamsmith
12-21-17, 1:42pm
I think this is a great thing for the Republicans, and the country at large. This legislation will enable probably 75-80% of the country to take home more money next year, which is a good thing. The funny thing is that the Democrats will spend that year telling voters if they just vote for them in November, they'll be happy to take all that extra money back.
I say good luck to them, and would someone please pass the popcorn.
Alan, would like butter and salt on that?
I havent spoken to anyone here in Penns Woods that is going to refuse their tax break even though you can voluntarily give more money to the government anytime you please. I think the person who earned the money knows best how to spend it save for some necessary government involvement in everyday critical functions of society. So am I envious that those wealthier than me get more of a break. Hell no! God bless them. The more the merrier. And it will sure give workers a nice bone to pick if they see not one benefit “trickling down” to them.
I didn’t see anyone kiss the Dons ring or his arse but they did glow as if they passed through a nuclear test site. Well, now what are Dems going to do? Just keep whining. They are sure squirming now because they were hopeful the Republicans would torpedo their own one chance in a century of getting everything done they want. Well, let’s see what they can do and if they fail.......there’s always 2020.
We'll see. The proof is in the pudding. Seems like everything lags by about 7-10 years, so it will take awhile to ultimately see how it works.
Alan, would like butter and salt on that?
Yes please, and enjoy the show!
Teacher Terry
12-21-17, 1:57pm
I don't know one person in real life that thinks this a good idea. Does it make sense in any world where you give the most $ to the rich and then you cut safety net programs, health insurance for poor sick kids, etc??? I wish I believed in Hell because if it existed these people who voted for this crap would be going there. `The rich are intent on destroying the middle class and letting the poor and elderly people die.
I don't know one person in real life that thinks this a good idea. Does it make sense in any world where you give the most $ to the rich and then you cut safety net programs, health insurance for poor sick kids, etc??? I wish I believed in Hell because if it existed these people who voted for this crap would be going there. `The rich are intent on destroying the middle class and letting the poor and elderly people die.
I think one of the principle differences between people like me and people like you is the idea that government gives money and that rich people are evil.
Where's that Bobby McFerrin song when you need it? Oh, here ya go!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU
ApatheticNoMore
12-21-17, 2:17pm
It's not EVEN a tax cut long term as the change in the inflation measure will eat it up at least for ordinary people whose tax cuts here are small potatoes anyway (yes corporations probably still make out well but that's because it was mostly their tax bill anyway - it WAS a corporate tax bill period with some TEMPORARY individual tax cuts thrown in purely as window dressing).
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-20/the-big-permanent-tax-increase-inside-the-tax-cut-act
Teacher Terry
12-21-17, 2:24pm
Alan, I believe in helping the less fortunate and do it all the time in my personal life with both $ and my time. I have always lived by my values so yes the government needs to help the less fortunate of it's citizens. Not all wealthy people are evil. Look at Buffett and Gates who are giving away most of their fortune to charity.
Williamsmith
12-21-17, 2:28pm
I see Monty Hall asking me if I want door #1 or door #2. One of them has Democrat Hillary Clinton and her big government tax hikes behind it. The door slides open and I see Donald Trump.......and I break into my happy dance. You see, it’s just that simple. And yes, I am dressed up in a hillbilly outfit just for Monty.
Teacher Terry
12-21-17, 3:09pm
The Disney heiress will save a lot of $ with these tax cuts but she is very much against them. An example of another wealthy person who is more interested in the common good then their own selfish interest. 1 in 6 kids in the US lives in a food insecure home. When kids do not get enough to eat if negatively impacts their cognitive abilities. As a SW I have seen kids born with normal intelligence ended up with very low IQ's due to lack of food. These are kids that as adults will have trouble supporting themselves, etc due to their below average intelligence level. We will be helping them forever as adults when we could have helped them as children and their lives would have been different. This is just one example of many when the poor are not helped. Both parties need to think beyond what is good for themselves and look to what is good for the whole country. I am truly heartbroken as to what is happening to this country.
I will refrain from opinionated comment until I've lived with it a few years. It does seem though that ordinary Joes will now make up for any federal tax savings with higher state taxes if you live in a state with those. If Repubs go after "entitlement" programs that we have already paid into, then I want my money back. It is just my personal observation and depends on where you live, but the direction of life quality for many Americans has declined rapidly. More homelessness, more petty crime. The future won't be pretty.
Whatever progress has been made in the past bringing back the economy from the greatest recession in a very long time is now history. The GOP now owns the economy from here on out and their grand experiment of trickle down economic growth paying for an additional 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. I will gladly take whatever benefits I receive, but I don't feel like the benefits were fairly distributed to the middle class.
I like the concept of giving people free money. We can always print more.
frugal-one
12-21-17, 4:53pm
Yeah... and now more trillions in debt we go. Smart... NOT!
frugal-one
12-21-17, 4:56pm
I see Monty Hall asking me if I want door #1 or door #2. One of them has Democrat Hillary Clinton and her big government tax hikes behind it. The door slides open and I see Donald Trump.......and I break into my happy dance. You see, it’s just that simple. And yes, I am dressed up in a hillbilly outfit just for Monty.
You would HAVE to be dressed in your hillbilly outfit to believe that this is a good thing! Somebody has to pay taxes. I feel very sorry for our youth and younger generation. They will inherit this mess! I honestly don't think it will personally hurt me since I worked for the govmt and have saved and lived by YMOYL. It is others less fortunate that strikes fear in my heart!!!!
frugal-one
12-21-17, 5:05pm
Anyone see that on the news? It was actually embarrassing. And some even said "He's a great leader". Huh? Who are they talking about??
The moron who said that was Paul Ryan. He's the one now kissing the don's arse!
I will gladly take whatever benefits I receive, but I don't feel like the benefits were fairly distributed to the middle class.
I'm not in favor of the government distributing money, they can't give it to me without first taking it from you. It doesn't seem right.
I like the concept of giving people free money. We can always print more.
Where's Bae and his pictures of Zimbabwe's trillion dollar bills?
Alan may be right. Perhaps the people who get a small tax break like WilliamSmith's will be happy enough with it that they won't care that 82% of the cuts went to corporations and the top 1% of earners. And maybe employees at the companies who have announced bonuses will be happy with the pennies they receive. My cell phone carrier, for instance, announced that they will be giving 200,000 employees a one time $1000 bonus because of the tax cut. Never mind that that only represents 10% of their estimated $2 billion annual windfall from the cut.
But at least the republicans have finally given up that silly lie that they are the party of fiscal responsibility.
But at least the republicans have finally given up that silly lie that they are the party of fiscal responsibility.
Yeah, that bugs me. I can only think that we've become accustomed to large deficits after doubling the national debt under a Democratic administration. The $1.5T over 10 years doesn't seem that bad after living through an average of nearly that each year for the past decade.
We'll see how the Democrat's current outrage over debt holds up next year when the Republicans start working on cutting spending.
And that's the crux of it. A big part of the tax scam that just passed was to give republicans an excuse to cut programs that actually help people. They certainly wont try to balance the budget on the backs of their friends who run the military industrial complex. What a bunch of mean selfish people.
I'm all for cutting government spending....on a stupid wall, which we can't afford, and on the hyuuge military, and even on paying for the U.N. But instead, any cutting spending will be done on things like national parks, libraries, schools, Social Security and Medicare....all the things that help make a well-educated, healthy middle class. Multi-billion dollar corporations and the richest 1% will just get richer, and any money from spending cuts will be fed into the government bottomless pit...for things like a stupid wall. This scheme makes no sense to me at all. It's like the "I Love Lucy" episode when Lucy and Ethel bottle and sell their own salad dressing, and Ricky runs the numbers to discover they're actually losing a few cents on each bottle. Lucy says, "but, Ricky, we'll make it up in volume."
frugal-one
12-22-17, 3:23am
I'm all for cutting government spending....on a stupid wall, which we can't afford, and on the hyuuge military, and even on paying for the U.N. But instead, any cutting spending will be done on things like national parks, libraries, schools, Social Security and Medicare....all the things that help make a well-educated, healthy middle class. Multi-billion dollar corporations and the richest 1% will just get richer, and any money from spending cuts will be fed into the government bottomless pit...for things like a stupid wall. This scheme makes no sense to me at all. It's like the "I Love Lucy" episode when Lucy and Ethel bottle and sell their own salad dressing, and Ricky runs the numbers to discover they're actually losing a few cents on each bottle. Lucy says, "but, Ricky, we'll make it up in volume."
+1
flowerseverywhere
12-22-17, 8:00am
Yeah, that bugs me. I can only think that we've become accustomed to large deficits after doubling the national debt under a Democratic administration. The $1.5T over 10 years doesn't seem that bad after living through an average of nearly that each year for the past decade.
We'll see how the Democrat's current outrage over debt holds up next year when the Republicans start working on cutting spending.
the change in viewpoints from deficit hawks to big spenders... funny how our government works these days
this highlights the biggest problem we have. No matter what Obama wanted, Republicans were against it. No matter what Trump wants, Dems are against it. How about trying to work together for a change because they are getting so little done.
They are all so so invested in investigations, accusations, defending themselves and so on, they have lost so much of the reason why they were elected. To do what is right for the future of the United States. The whole lot of them, on both sides of the aisle.
Yeah, that bugs me. I can only think that we've become accustomed to large deficits after doubling the national debt under a Democratic administration. The $1.5T over 10 years doesn't seem that bad after living through an average of nearly that each year for the past decade.
Obama ramped up deficit spending pretty good. It was part of a stimulus package to bring back the economy and included the winding down of war expenditures. Right or wrong, it seems like now that the economy is chugging along fairly well and no major wars it should be the time to reduce the debt.
Some time ago I had a discussion that led to some light research on how much debt is too much. I don't think the economic experts of the country really know, other than you don't go around printing up big hand's full of money. Every recent president has increased the debt and it would seem reasonable to expect to reach a breaking point, where debt repayments and interest expense becomes a drag on the economy or the economy is over stimulated and you get into run away inflation and high interest rates.
So, when and if the tax cuts don't provide the results intended, I'd expect eyes will be on SS and medicare cuts, which other than military spending seem like the big likely targets that Paul Ryan would love to get his hands on. Or maybe Trump's voodoo economics will make America great again. But I'm not putting money on the latter and there are some supposed experts that probably agree.
Just seems to me that if the government didn't waste an incredible amount of money on ridiculous things (not the least of which is giving money to countries that hate us), we'd have more than enough for everyone and everything in this country that needs fixed, education, etc., etc., etc.
It will be interesting to see if the cap on state and local tax deductions will cause a shift in affluent populations from high tax states to low tax states the way this author suggests: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-21/the-south-will-rise-again-under-gop-tax-plan
catherine
12-22-17, 12:55pm
It will be interesting to see if the cap on state and local tax deductions will cause a shift in affluent populations from high tax states to low tax states the way this author suggests: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-21/the-south-will-rise-again-under-gop-tax-plan
So, because I have a "wee pea brain" (my DH's favorite admission for himself), please educate me on what that would mean for someone who lives in New Jersey and pays $30,000 property tax (That's NOT me, BTW--I'm just trying to establish an example for the $10,000 cap hypothesis you're forwarding here. But I do know people who pay that much.) What is that homeowner going to do?
It will be interesting to see if the cap on state and local tax deductions will cause a shift in affluent populations from high tax states to low tax states the way this author suggests: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-21/the-south-will-rise-again-under-gop-tax-plan
Certainly an interesting hypothesis. And if accurate perhaps this will flip a few red states blue as democrats move from traditionally red states to traditionally blue states. (And as peurto ricans who have gone to Florida post-hurricane decide to stay). I question, though, how realistic this idea is for businesses that need well educated employees. I'm not an expert on what states have the best educational outcomes, but I do know that places like the Silicon Valley have excellent public schools that are preparing an abundant number of people to work there. Moving a tech company to (or starting one in) place with lower educational outcomes would be a questionable decision that carried some risk.
Another possibility is that blue states will become more blue as people realize that their republican congresspeople in blue states are not serving their personal interest. There are 7 republican congresspeople in CA districts that Hillary won. If I were any of them I'd be very worried about next year's elections.
catherine
12-22-17, 1:06pm
Another possibility is that blue states will become more blue as people realize that their republican congresspeople in blue states are not serving their personal interest. There are 7 republican congresspeople in CA districts that Hillary won. If I were any of them I'd be very worried about next year's elections.
I'm happy to be moving to Bernie-Land. It's not personal interest, per se. I pay a LOT of taxes, in gratitude for my blessings, and I thank God that I've been able to do for myself. It's more for an alignment of values, consistent with Bernie's achievements in Burlington with creating beautiful common spaces over the interests of real estate developers, providing healthcare for those who need it, and coming up with innovative programs to level the playing field in housing.
ApatheticNoMore
12-22-17, 1:35pm
If your biggest worry of living in a high tax state is taxes, wow the middle class (and I mean the whole of it) can't relate. Because the things middle class people struggle with in those states tend to be things like high housing costs. If rich people moved out maybe housing costs would be less distorted as they are part of the distortion, that would be good (but then again there is so much foreign money etc. that I don't know how much effect native rich people really have).
So, because I have a "wee pea brain" (my DH's favorite admission for himself), please educate me on what that would mean for someone who lives in New Jersey and pays $30,000 property tax (That's NOT me, BTW--I'm just trying to establish an example for the $10,000 cap hypothesis you're forwarding here. But I do know people who pay that much.) What is that homeowner going to do?
The cap applies to state and local taxes, so the hypothetical Jerseyite would have to add state and local income taxes to the $30K to figure her new federal tax liability. She might also need to consider how her federal tax bite and house value might be affected by the lower cap on the mortgage interest deduction.
I see a big blue wave on the horizon, and it can't get here soon enough.
Prospective candidates are signing up to run as Democrats in record numbers. What happened in Virginia and Alabama is just the beginning.
It will be interesting to see if the cap on state and local tax deductions will cause a shift in affluent populations from high tax states to low tax states the way this author suggests: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-21/the-south-will-rise-again-under-gop-tax-plan
I have little concept of housing prices and income in those places, but would also suspect with the over all cost of home ownership going up that housing prices could come down, just because people can't afford things. And especially if people start moving to other places and the supply of houses for sale goes up. Then again I don't quite grasp how the young middle class affords houses even around here.
I see a big blue wave on the horizon, and it can't get here soon enough.
Prospective candidates are signing up to run as Democrats in record numbers. What happened in Virginia and Alabama is just the beginning.
I just wish the pendulum didn't always over-swing in response to everything. If there is a big blue wave.........then a red tsunami will follow, etc., etc. I hope this isn't the case, but it seems to be the norm now.
And that's the crux of it. A big part of the tax scam that just passed was to give republicans an excuse to cut programs that actually help people. They certainly wont try to balance the budget on the backs of their friends who run the military industrial complex. What a bunch of mean selfish people.
+1
and you can see into the future, when the Dems are in charge again and need to reverse these tax cuts in order to prevent incurring more debt.
and the Republicans will have their inevitable knee-jerk negative response ("how dare you raise taxes??") and so the budget debt crisis continues, along with the mounting deficit.
An interesting side note: a friend who lives in a gated upscale senior community said that many residents there honestly don't give a damn about the long-term consequences of these financially irresponsible cuts. They believe that since they won't be here then they don't have to worry about it. No wonder Millennials think Boomers are the most selfish generation.
JaneV2.0
12-23-17, 10:14am
IMO, we need--and have needed for a long time--to raise taxes in graduated fashion--perhaps using the fifties as a model. Then get rid of the cap on Social Security deductions, perhaps graduate that tax as well, and problem solved. Judicious cutting of duplicative government programs, our bloated military, and outdated subsidy handouts would be a starting point. A massive infrastructure project would stimulate the economy, as would increased immigration to shore up our flagging population.
catherine
12-23-17, 11:38am
IMO, we need--and have needed for a long time--to raise taxes in graduated fashion--perhaps using the fifties as a model. Then get rid of the cap on Social Security deductions, perhaps graduate that tax as well, and problem solved. Judicious cutting of duplicative government programs, our bloated military, and outdated subsidy handouts would be a starting point. A massive infrastructure project would stimulate the economy, as would increased immigration to shore up our flagging population.
Jane for president 2020! :)
Jane for president 2020! :)
I agree. Matter of fact it sort of sounds like Bernie. I have little doubt that large donors were heavy handed on the the tax bill. It would be sort of nice to get big money and big business out of politics, ala Bernie.
It sort of slipped under the radar, which may have been the intention, but the bill included a provision to open the arctic up to drilling. I haven't checked on the details.
I cede my nomination to Elizabeth Warren. Or Bernie.
Williamsmith
12-23-17, 8:57pm
I cede my nomination to Elizabeth Warren. Or Bernie.
Elizabeth and Bernie have no chance ..... doesn’t the Democratic Party have a real candidate?
Ultralight
12-23-17, 9:10pm
Elizabeth and Bernie have no chance ..... doesn’t the Democratic Party have a real candidate?
The Democrat party is run by idiots. They will probably send Hillary up there again.
frugal-one
12-23-17, 10:25pm
The Democrat party is run by idiots. They will probably send Hillary up there again.
Look WHAT is in the white house!!!! I will never vote Republican again based on this fiasco.
JaneV2.0
12-23-17, 11:03pm
Look WHAT is in the white house!!!! I will never vote Republican again based on this fiasco.
I've been a registered Independent for decades. I used to regularly vote for Republicans. They could run Pope Francis for City Commissioner and I wouldn't vote for him. What a sad end for a once respectable party.
I see a big blue wave on the horizon, and it can't get here soon enough.
Prospective candidates are signing up to run as Democrats in record numbers. What happened in Virginia and Alabama is just the beginning.
after the massive gains the Republicans have had during the last administration, it would not be surprising to see some shift back the other way.
We will see.
As much as I do or don't like Bernie or Elizabeth, the democrats really need a fresh approach and a new face. If the dems rely on old politics of the Hillary or Bernie irk we might be stuck with another round or Trump or Kasich. I think Kasich is as much a part of the Trump resistance as anyone and I'd bet he's already scheming.
The Washington Post brought up an issue I'd not thought of. Now that fewer people will itemize, some of the tax benefits of charitable giving will go away.
JaneV2.0
12-24-17, 11:47am
As much as I do or don't like Bernie or Elizabeth, the democrats really need a fresh approach and a new face. If the dems rely on old politics of the Hillary or Bernie irk we might be stuck with another round or Trump or Kasich. I think Kasich is as much a part of the Trump resistance as anyone and I'd bet he's already scheming.
The Washington Post brought up an issue I'd not thought of. Now that fewer people will itemize, some of the tax benefits of charitable giving will go away.
Despite my admiration for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie, I wholeheartedly agree. Someone with the youth, vigor, and intellect of former President Obama would be fine with me.
Kasich just signed an intrusive (and likely illegal) abortion ban. I'm pretty sure he's off any list of acceptable Resistance candidates.
I see California is considering the tactic of calling some (mandatory) payments “charitable contributions” to get around the SALT cap. Sort of like when the Obama administration tried arguing that the individual mandate penalty wasn’t really a tax.
I see California is considering the tactic of calling some (mandatory) payments “charitable contributions” to get around the SALT cap. Sort of like when the Obama administration tried arguing that the individual mandate penalty wasn’t really a tax.
Considering that something like 32% of CA taxpayers itemize and the average itemization is $22,000 it's not surprising that our representatives in Sacramento would be looking for ways to deal with this. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, and if successful, how long before every other blue state does something similar.
iris lilies
1-4-18, 12:29pm
I see California is considering the tactic of calling some (mandatory) payments “charitable contributions” to get around the SALT cap. Sort of like when the Obama administration tried arguing that the individual mandate penalty wasn’t really a tax.
Well, Justice Roberts bought that argument, much to my consternation.
still that moment is one of the biggest WTFs of politics of my lifetime.
Considering that something like 32% of CA taxpayers itemize and the average itemization is $22,000 it's not surprising that our representatives in Sacramento would be looking for ways to deal with this. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, and if successful, how long before every other blue state does something similar.
I thought residents of blue states were in favor of higher taxes for everyone? This move doesn't seem very progressive to me.
And I thought republicans were for fiscal responsibility. Apparently the times are changing.
And I thought republicans were for fiscal responsibility. Apparently the times are changing.
Real Republicans are. I suspect efforts to pare down expenses will commence shortly and we can again be hated for holding the Feds to the same standards Californians expect of their state, a balanced budget.
I guess there aren't any real republicans in the house or senate then, considering that almost all of them voted for fiscal irresponsibility.
Phase 1 of 2.
Fiscal irresponsibility is best exemplified in doubling 200 years of accumulated debt in 8 years. If Phase 2 results in reduced expenditures or economic growth counter-balancing the tax cuts I suppose the most accurate thing you can say about Republicans is that they maintained the status quo, although I suspect accuracy requires a higher standard of political discourse than we should expect.
Fiscal irresponsibility is best exemplified in doubling 200 years of accumulated debt in 8 years. If Phase 2 results in reduced expenditures or economic growth counter-balancing the tax cuts I suppose the most accurate thing you can say about Republicans is that they maintained the status quo, although I suspect accuracy requires a higher standard of political discourse than we should expect.
It's a grand experiment. If the expected economic growth in Phase 2 doesn't cover the added deficit, I'd expect SS, Medicare, and Medicaid to be prime targets. Alternately, the deficit could just test a new high to see if it's sustainable without wrecking the economy.
The Reagan era tax cuts, and more recently, the Brownback era tax cuts make a mockery of the claimed likely revenue increases.
If the republicans in congress were honest they would have admitted that the plan all along was to give a massive tax break to corporations and rich people like the Walton family, paid for by slashing programs that help the hated middle and lower classes like Medicare, social security and Medicaid. But being honest in that way would have made their tax bill even less popular than it already was.
Williamsmith
1-4-18, 5:39pm
The Reagan era tax cuts, and more recently, the Brownback era tax cuts make a mockery of the claimed likely revenue increases.
If the republicans in congress were honest they would have admitted that the plan all along was to give a massive tax break to corporations and rich people like the Walton family, paid for by slashing programs that help the hated middle and lower classes like Medicare, social security and Medicaid. But being honest in that way would have made their tax bill even less popular than it already was.
You sound like you are disenfranchised and indifferent. Imagine that. Well, I’m not complaining. I figure I know better what to do with my own hard earned money than the federal bureaucracy does. Now, I got a point there, don’t I? I do have a point there! Medicare, Social Security (which I will not get) and Medicaid are already dead men walking. Embrace it. Cheers.
You sound like you are disenfranchised and indifferent. Imagine that. Well, I’m not complaining. I figure I know better what to do with my own hard earned money than the federal bureaucracy does. Now, I got a point there, don’t I? I do have a point there! Medicare, Social Security (which I will not get) and Medicaid are already dead men walking. Embrace it. Cheers.
You won’t get social security why? ... You didn’t pay into it and getting a pension instead??
Real Republicans are. I suspect efforts to pare down expenses will commence shortly and we can again be hated for holding the Feds to the same standards Californians expect of their state, a balanced budget.
What is a “real republican”? Evidently, not the current regime!
Phase 1 of 2.
Fiscal irresponsibility is best exemplified in doubling 200 years of accumulated debt in 8 years. If Phase 2 results in reduced expenditures or economic growth counter-balancing the tax cuts I suppose the most accurate thing you can say about Republicans is that they maintained the status quo, although I suspect accuracy requires a higher standard of political discourse than we should expect.
Everyone seems to forget the terrible times and the “recession/depression” of around 2008. The USA fared better than many other countries. Imagine if Trump had to face THAT coming into office! I shudder to think about it!
flowerseverywhere
1-5-18, 9:45am
Phase 1 of 2.
Fiscal irresponsibility is best exemplified in doubling 200 years of accumulated debt in 8 years. If Phase 2 results in reduced expenditures or economic growth counter-balancing the tax cuts I suppose the most accurate thing you can say about Republicans is that they maintained the status quo, although I suspect accuracy requires a higher standard of political discourse than we should expect.
i did some reading on the cause and amount of debt during Obama’s terms and it is interesting to note there are several ways to calculate this and blame policies of one or another person. The bottom line is the debt increased significantly. But has that not been a rallying cry of the Republicans, deficit reduction? If it does not happen will you and other Republican backers accept the excuse “he did it first”.
Do you think that the current administration and republican congress and senate will be held accountable for the numerous statements the president made?
mexico will pay for the great big beautiful wall
i have a plan for healthcare that will give more people better coverage for less money?
deport all the illegal immigrants (he has given this his best shot and has achieved less illegal immigrants coming in)
to LGBT “I’m with you”
to DACA “I have your back”
no more Muslims will be coming into,this country (he certainly gave this a very good try).
The tax tax cut will be interesting to see how it pans out. Best case scenario is people will spend more money and save more, businesses will increase their workforce, give pay raises and bring offshore money Home and invest it in this country.
Worst case scenario we io we will go to war somewhere, spend more and more money without fixing our infrastructure, have more climate related natural disasters, the rich will get richer and the poor poorer, there could be more terrible terrorist attacks, and the stock market love affair will end, and due to lack of affordable and accessible healthcare our life expectancy will decrease, infant mortality increase and preventable diseases like whooping cough, police etc. will be back due to lack of immunization because people won’t afford it.
But out of course all we are hearing about is what crooks and liars were in the Obama, clinton and now the Trump camp and how much money is being spent on investigations on all the news networks.
But out of course all we are hearing about is what crooks and liars were in the Obama, clinton and now the Trump camp and how much money is being spent on investigations on all the news networks.
News has become entertainment. They provide you whatever information or opinion that motivates you to come back for more. Learn to trust your BS detector and you'll find that all those issues you mentioned are not as problematic as you've been led to believe.
What is a “real republican”? Evidently, not the current regime!
That's a question I've had occasion to ponder over the last year or two. With Democrats, at least since the decline of the blue dogs, it seems fairly simple. You've got the identity-based faction and the smaller class-based faction to choose from. The GOP probably has six or eight distinct flavors under the big tent: libertarians, value traditionalists, fiscal hawks, defense hawks, free-marketers, nationalists, populists, constitutionalists and maybe a few others. It seems a lot messier to me, although a great deal more interesting than the other side.
The question in my mind is whether a party that would nominate Trump (although I suspect an open primary system subject to hijacking may be primarily to blame) is still an acceptable political home for an old fashioned small-government, laissez faire conservative dinosaur like me. I suppose a "real Republican" or a "real Democrat" is anyone who calls himself one. You could probably argue that both Trump and Sanders claimed party affiliation as mere flags of convenience. But if I try to determine where a "real conservative" fits into the political ecosystem it becomes more problematic for me. Is it better to stay with the GOP as it is as the best bulwark against the coercive utopians of the left, or should we found a new party built along bedrock conservative principles?
Williamsmith
1-5-18, 11:10am
You won’t get social security why? ... You didn’t pay into it and getting a pension instead??
The jobs I worked before my career in Law Enforcement, I paid in to SS and the jobs I worked afterward, I paid in also. I have enough quarters to qualify for a payment but that payment will be reduced by some 60% , which leaves me with something like $25/mo.
The pension, I paid into and am simply withdrawing from an annuity which will be used up in something like 10 more years however, the number crunchers called Actuaries have determined that people who performed my job will only live on average 17 years after their retirement. My anecdotal experience in the past 7 years tells me they know their stuff because one guy I retired with died one year later of colon cancer, another fell dead of heart attack while mowing his lawn at age 55 and a few others are currently battling chronic illnesses like diabetes and cancer, etc.
Im not complaining. I believe in destiny. When your number is up, you can’t go to the end of the line. I’m very fortunate and I sympathize with those in tough spots. But I live for today and let tomorrow’s worries for tomorrow, I’ll take the tax break and be damn happy for it.
The jobs I worked before my career in Law Enforcement, I paid in to SS and the jobs I worked afterward, I paid in also. I have enough quarters to qualify for a payment but that payment will be reduced by some 60% , which leaves me with something like $25/mo.
The pension, I paid into and am simply withdrawing from an annuity which will be used up in something like 10 more years however, the number crunchers called Actuaries have determined that people who performed my job will only live on average 17 years after their retirement. My anecdotal experience in the past 7 years tells me they know their stuff because one guy I retired with died one year later of colon cancer, another fell dead of heart attack while mowing his lawn at age 55 and a few others are currently battling chronic illnesses like diabetes and cancer, etc.
Im not complaining. I believe in destiny. When your number is up, you can’t go to the end of the line. I’m very fortunate and I sympathize with those in tough spots. But I live for today and let tomorrow’s worries for tomorrow, I’ll take the tax break and be damn happy for it.
If it’s anything like a typical defined benefit public pension, it won’t be “used up” after a set period. The participants who die early in effect subsidize the methuselahs through what is charmingly called the “mortality credit”.
A good summary of U.S. debt by presidents:
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and George W Bush doubled it again. And there was no 2008-style economic crisis to explain those actions.
It's convenient to only look back 8 years ago, but it's not the whole picture.
A good summary of U.S. debt by presidents:
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and George W Bush doubled it again. And there was no 2008-style economic crisis to explain those actions.
It's convenient to only look back 8 years ago, but it's not the whole picture.
Not to take away from your point, but the figures in your referenced article missed an important bit of data. The $1.62T deficit attributed to George W. Bush in 2009 was the result of the last budget Congress approved through the entire Obama era. It was passed by a Democratic controlled Congress and then held back until President Obama took office, awaiting his signature. I'm not sure why it's attributed to the previous President.
You sound like you are disenfranchised and indifferent.
Am I Disenfranchised? Possibly. Indifferent? Definitely not. If I were disenfranchised AND indifferent I'd probably look like my friend A, a millennial who has never bothered to vote because he doesn't see much difference between the parties. I suppose I can't blame him since Bill Clinton had already turned the democrats into republican-lite by the time A realized there was more to the world than staring into his mother's smiling face.
Considering that something like 32% of CA taxpayers itemize and the average itemization is $22,000 it's not surprising that our representatives in Sacramento would be looking for ways to deal with this. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, and if successful, how long before every other blue state does something similar.
i thought dems were against tax breaks for the rich.
i thought dems were against tax breaks for the rich.
And I thought republicans were in favor of fiscal responsibility. But apparently people on both ends of the political spectrum have a poor understanding of what is important to the other side.
Williamsmith
1-5-18, 2:14pm
If it’s anything like a typical defined benefit public pension, it won’t be “used up” after a set period. The participants who die early in effect subsidize the methuselahs through what is charmingly called the “mortality credit”.
Well, if I live to be 68 I’ll be sure to go visit Chuck’s grave and thank him for making it all possible. You know maybe the Commonwealth does have a good reason to kill off all the retirees? Sure might solve the budget problem.
Williamsmith
1-5-18, 2:18pm
Considering that something like 32% of CA taxpayers itemize and the average itemization is $22,000 it's not surprising that our representatives in Sacramento would be looking for ways to deal with this. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, and if successful, how long before every other blue state does something similar.
Isnt that called the “charitable contributions scam”? I mean, if you don’t pay it, they are going to come after you so it’s a forced charitable contribution. Didn’t Vito Don Corleone get his start in the “charitable contribution” business?
I just brought up this thread for the first time, read it in it’s entirety and have come to a conclusion. Based on this thread and the nation as a whole, I see that a person will look for and find information to support and encourage whatever stance or preconceived notion they have on an issue, a person, an ideology or a group of people. It is rare that facts will change minds. If you love/support an idea, a person, group or ideology no amount of irrefutable information to the contrary will change the love. If you hate an idea, a person, group or ideology no amount of irrefutable information to the contrary will change the hate. It’s just the way people are and has become more evident in the political arena over the past year and in a microcosm such as this forum. Feelings are strong, convictions are deep but rarely do they find common ground or lead to a peaceful resolution to conflict. Good read.
flowerseverywhere
1-5-18, 3:06pm
News has become entertainment. They provide you whatever information or opinion that motivates you to come back for more. Learn to trust your BS detector and you'll find that all those issues you mentioned are not as problematic as you've been led to believe.
i agree 100%. Distract, criticize. Today for example cnn is all about Bannon and the new book. Fox is all about Huma, Hillary and fusion GPS.
People, there is a lot going on in the US that needs attention. How about some immigration reform, health care policy instead of planting seeds of hate and doubt? Spend taxpayer money on making life better for all of us, not to further your political agenda. Can you imagine the cost of all this?
Both sides of the aisle are full full of self serving deplorables
I just brought up this thread for the first time, read it in it’s entirety and have come to a conclusion. Based on this thread and the nation as a whole, I see that a person will look for and find information to support and encourage whatever stance or preconceived notion they have on an issue, a person, an ideology or a group of people. It is rare that facts will change minds. If you love/support an idea, a person, group or ideology no amount of irrefutable information to the contrary will change the love. If you hate an idea, a person, group or ideology no amount of irrefutable information to the contrary will change the hate. It’s just the way people are and has become more evident in the political arena over the past year and in a microcosm such as this forum. Feelings are strong, convictions are deep but rarely do they find common ground or lead to a peaceful resolution to conflict. Good read.
I agree.
I'd love to hear from people who HAVE changed their minds about something, when they were previously committed to one idea or ideology or another? Change political parties? Change thoughts about big issues like abortion, gay rights, climate change?
If anyone here has had a conversion of some sort, can you share, and tell us why and what specifically motivated. you to change?
Williamsmith
1-5-18, 3:28pm
I agree.
I'd love to hear from people who HAVE changed their minds about something, when they were previously committed to one idea or ideology or another? Change political parties? Change thoughts about big issues like abortion, gay rights, climate change?
If anyone here has had a conversion of some sort, can you share, and tell us why and what specifically motivated. you to change?
I have changed my mind about all the things you have mentioned here Catherine......several times! What day of the week is it?
We had a member here years ago who admitted converting from a Democrat to a Republican based largely upon the daily condemnation of Republicans by one of the moderators. Unfortunately, neither of them are around anymore, I miss them both.
I'd love to hear from people who HAVE changed their minds about something, when they were previously committed to one idea or ideology or another? Change political parties? Change thoughts about big issues like abortion, gay rights, climate change?
Me Too.
I have changed my mind about all the things you have mentioned here Catherine......several times! What day of the week is it?
Friday but lets say it's Tuesday. ;)
We had a member here years ago who admitted converting from a Democrat to a Republican based largely upon the daily condemnation of Republicans by one of the moderators. Unfortunately, neither of them are around anymore.
Probably not the intended result of those doing the condemning but I guess it counts as a process and a conversion.
Probably not the intended result of those doing the condemning but I guess it counts as a process and a conversion.
Granted, it wasn't over any particular issue or talking point, more of a guilt through association rebuke.
To me it is interesting, in the least, what Trump has done to the potential future of the environment. It hardly gets any press among all the bickering.
I can weather about any financial storm politics might throw at me, but when when I think of future generations I would like them to have the freedom to leave work at reasonable retirement age before their body and mind are worn out. And, slightly aside from the hot issue of global warming, public places they can go or know about where the wonder of the diversity and beauty of birds and plants and animals can still be found outside of zoos and heavily managed parks. And to know about wild places like the Arctic Refuge and some of the places I've been in what is (or was) the Bears Ears areas where there is a true sense of untrammeled wilderness. Maybe it is now archaic to quote Thoreau and say, "In wildness is the preservation of the world". Or "Man has become the tool of his own tools".
National Geo had a list of what Trump has done to the environment. To my eyes it looks like a long list. Taxes can come and go with the next regime, but some of the environmental damage can extend for generations.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/
I used to be in favor of capital punishment, but have since changed my mind. I came to the conclusion that government is too prone to screwups and that it was impossible to correct mistakes post-execution.
I doubt there are all that many “irrefutable” facts in the political sphere. Just as I doubt the existence of “settled science”.
I agree.
I'd love to hear from people who HAVE changed their minds about something, when they were previously committed to one idea or ideology or another? Change political parties? Change thoughts about big issues like abortion, gay rights, climate change?
If anyone here has had a conversion of some sort, can you share, and tell us why and what specifically motivated. you to change?
Previously, I was an Independent. I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans. I will no longer vote for a Republican based on Trump and Walker in WI. They show what the Republican party now represents. I want no part of it!!!!!!
I was a vegetarian for years; it wasn't for me. I was satisfied with the food, but not with the constant hunger and extra weight it produced. My metabolism definitely prefers meat and fat to starch.
I flirted with the idea of capital punishment, but I agree with LDAHL--our legal system is unequally applied, and often capricious, so as much as i would appreciate hanging some miscreants from a yardarm, I'd rather err on the side of caution.
I had to have same-sex marriage explained to me--I couldn't understand why some other form of civil commitment wouldn't be as good until all the legal ramifications (plus some social considerations) were outlined. In fairness to me, I'm no expert on marriage.
Like Roger, I fear for the environment under this cabal of jackals.
flowerseverywhere
1-6-18, 6:05am
I agree.
I'd love to hear from people who HAVE changed their minds about something, when they were previously committed to one idea or ideology or another? Change political parties? Change thoughts about big issues like abortion, gay rights, climate change?
If anyone here has had a conversion of some sort, can you share, and tell us why and what specifically motivated. you to change?
I have never been registered for a party until this year. I joined the local 500+ member democratic club in my area which is great at grass roots organizing and registered as a democrat. I don’t feel like I have any choice as I watch the gop stand by and let the shenanigans at the WH go on. As long as they get rich, stop abortion, put more guns in circulation, support the death penalty roll back LGBT rights, keep black men in jail and people who are not white Christians out of the country all is well. How many will walk into a church tomorrow and actually think they are good Christians? What would Jesus do? I doubt what we are seeing on Capitol Hill.
I have ave many friends who were down on their luck who for a short time relied on government safety net and spent the rest of their lives contributing to the tax rolls and their communities. I myself ended up in foster care, got help very early on and became a registered nurse and spent 30 years working with abuse victims. I don’t know what would have happened to me and my siblings if the government had not helped us. Street beggars? Prostitutes? Dead? All of us managed to get an education and work 30 plus years as contributors to society.
They promised to repeal and replace Obamacare with, in Trumps words “something with better coverage, covering more people, cheaper, believe me”. Where is it? You have the majority in the house, senate and WH. The answer is they just don’t care about doing anything unless it enriches them or their buddies and advances their agenda of selfishness and hate
plenty of democrats are not doing their job, but I don’t believe the course our government is taking will serve our future generations well. I have to place my bets on the dems. And I have voted for many republicans through the years but the party is out of control right now.
I’ve voted for both, but mostly republican. I’m for abortion, and capital punishment. But neither are a big deal to me. I’m against gun control. The cost of health care is a big deal, but I also would rather just have a catastrophic plan, not be forced to buy something I don’t want. As a rich old white guy the democrats dont seem to be working for me except to empty my pockets.
And I think the majority in both party’s are filled with self serving crooks. And I’m still fine with Trump as president, the stock market is still doing good so far and it looks like I’ll pay a little less in taxes. And it’s very entertaining, I watch CNN some just for the entertainment. You know they are also happy about the election results.
I see that Oregon has changed its mind about whether people should be allowed to pump their own gas.
.... As a rich old white guy the democrats don't seem to be working for me .....
Isn't this the crux of it? There are a lot of things that don't personally affect me but that are important for others and our country overall.
I no longer have a child in public school but I gladly pay taxes so that K-12 schooling continues to be tuition-free. I will never be pregnant again but I believe birth control and pregnancy coverage should be a mandatory part of normal health insurance. I don't live in a disaster zone but I'm glad FEMA is there if I should need it.
If we base all of our voting decisions solely on how it personally affects us, we no longer have functioning communities or states, much less a united country. Someone said the motto on the Republican flag is "I've Got Mine." So far in these Republican administrations that, sadly, has proven very true.
iris lilies
1-7-18, 12:10pm
Isn't this the crux of it? There are a lot of things that don't personally affect me but that are important for others and our country overall.
I no longer have a child in public school but I gladly pay taxes so that K-12 schooling continues to be tuition-free. I will never be pregnant again but I believe birth control and pregnancy coverage should be a mandatory part of normal health insurance. I don't live in a disaster zone but I'm glad FEMA is there if I should need it.
If we base all of our voting decisions solely on how it personally affects us, we no longer have functioning communities or states, much less a united country. Someone said the motto on the Republican flag is "I've Got Mine." So far in these Republican administrations that, sadly, has proven very true.
Ah yes, those “I’ve got mine” conservatives.We “got ours,” a savings of $10,000 in 2017 by jumping onto an ACA health insurance plan.
But just because it benefitted us doesn't mean I think it is anything but a piss poor piece of legislation.
You scold dmc for looking after himself but not the rest of the country. That goes both ways, something that isnt good for the country is good for me and I but I dont support it.
iris lilies
1-7-18, 12:17pm
I think the theme of “what did you change your mind on” is extremely interesting, but deserving of its own thread. It will get lost buried on this one about Wascally Wepublicans.
We have actually had that thread years ago, I remember because I like reading the reasons why people swing from one political idea to the other side of the same idea (or religion, or whatever) because that represente geowth or at least a lively change.
Oh, and the thread died pretty fast. People like to hang on to their pet ideas.
Isn't this the crux of it? There are a lot of things that don't personally affect me but that are important for others and our country overall.
I no longer have a child in public school but I gladly pay taxes so that K-12 schooling continues to be tuition-free. I will never be pregnant again but I believe birth control and pregnancy coverage should be a mandatory part of normal health insurance. I don't live in a disaster zone but I'm glad FEMA is there if I should need it.
If we base all of our voting decisions solely on how it personally affects us, we no longer have functioning communities or states, much less a united country. Someone said the motto on the Republican flag is "I've Got Mine." So far in these Republican administrations that, sadly, has proven very true.
And the Democrat motto seems to be I don’t have it so let’s take yours.
And the Democrat motto seems to be I don’t have it so let’s take yours.
Go to page 2 of this thread and reread. YOU obviously have no concern for anyone else but yourself!
I see that Oregon has changed its mind about whether people should be allowed to pump their own gas.
I hate to burst your bubble since you seem to be excited that people will have the freedom to do for themselves what was once a service provided with their purchase of a product, but the details are that only gas stations in counties representing about 7% of Oregon's population will be able to make their customers do the work for them. Everyone else lives in a county with at least 40,000 residents and the change doesn't apply to them.
I remember when you could chose full or self service.
Go to page 2 of this thread and reread. YOU obviously have no concern for anyone else but yourself!
Unemployment rate is down, black employment down, I believe to record lows, and 2 million off of food stamps. Stock market is also doing pretty well.
and I believe many are going to notice a little extra in their take home pay soon.
Thing seem to be going pretty good to me.
I hate to burst your bubble since you seem to be excited that people will have the freedom to do for themselves what was once a service provided with their purchase of a product....
Of course the price of a product reflects the labor involved in delivery to the end user. Allowing self-serve operations should be reflected in a lower cost to the consumer which is indeed something to be excited about.
I wonder what Oregon has against the rest of the state, continuing to deny them that option?
I hate to burst your bubble since you seem to be excited that people will have the freedom to do for themselves what was once a service provided with their purchase of a product, but the details are that only gas stations in counties representing about 7% of Oregon's population will be able to make their customers do the work for them. Everyone else lives in a county with at least 40,000 residents and the change doesn't apply to them.
It's good to hear the scourge of self-serve gas pumps and the possibility of lower prices will be limited to a small fraction of the population. If you go around letting businesses and their customers make such decisions for themselves, Oregon might soon become an anarchic hellhole like Iowa.
Williamsmith
1-7-18, 7:16pm
Of course the price of a product reflects the labor involved in delivery to the end user. Allowing self-serve operations should be reflected in a lower cost to the consumer which is indeed something to be excited about.
I wonder what Oregon has against the rest of the state, continuing to deny them that option?
I was wondering about some of the same things but it seems that Oregon enacted this no one pumps their own law way back in the FDR days about the same time they made marijuana smoking illegal. It was so that filling station attendants could keep their jobs and not be phased out by money grabbing pump your own station owners.
This time around, they have legalized pot smoking and only grudgingly permitted pump your own in Such rural unpopulated counties that gas station attendants might not see a customer in a full midnight shift. Turns out there is probably no risk of attendants being phased out because rural gas station owners can’t justify replacing their pumps with expensive credit card reading state of the art pumps.
Now, New Jersey.......there’s a state that definitely needs to teach their citizens how to get smelly gasoline on their fingers.
Now, New Jersey.......there’s a state that definitely needs to teach their citizens how to get smelly gasoline on their fingers.
No, thank you! I like being able to stay in my nice, climate-controlled car and let someone else do the work. Although I feel very bad for the people pumping gas these past couple of weeks. I'm just glad I'm not one of them!
Of course the price of a product reflects the labor involved in delivery to the end user. Allowing self-serve operations should be reflected in a lower cost to the consumer which is indeed something to be excited about.
One would think so, but anyone who has purchased gas in NY and NJ is well aware that gas in NJ is actually cheaper despite the fact that NJ is all full service. So I thought maybe the gas tax in NY is significantly higher. According to wikipedia the difference is $.0678 per gallon. A quick search on gasbuddy of current prices in Trenton and Albany, two relatively small cities that don't have comparable non-red-hot real estate costs turned up the following:
Trenton:
Several non name brand gas stations ranging in the $2.39 - $2.45 price range
Name brand gas stations (Exxon/Conoco, etc) in the $2.69 - $2.74 range
Albany:
No discernable difference in price between generic and branded stations.
Cheapest single station $2.52
Median: around $2.58 - $2.60
Most expensive single station $2.85
Adding 7 cents to the full service NJ prices to account for the tax difference puts Trentonians exactly in the range that Albanians are paying for self service. And if people in both cities search out the cheapest option the Trentonian actually comes out ahead.
One would think so, but anyone who has purchased gas in NY and NJ is well aware that gas in NJ is actually cheaper despite the fact that NJ is all full service.
I can vouch heartily for that very fact. When we drive to New York, we make sure we gas up in NJ first. Or if we have to buy gas in NY, we only buy enough to get us across the bridge.
Edited to add this excerpt from the NYTimes:
Chris Christie proposed self-serve gas during his gubernatorial campaign in 2009, but dropped the proposal because the negative response from the public was so ferocious. At a town hall-style meeting in 2016, he said that it was a gender issue, citing a poll that indicated that 78 percent of women in the state were only too happy to stay in their cars.
Ashley Koning, the director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University, said in an interview that the idea of pumping one’s own gas had never been broadly favorable in New Jersey.
“It’s kind of one of the third rails of state politics,” she said, noting that women and older people in particular enjoyed the service.
One would think so, but anyone who has purchased gas in NY and NJ is well aware that gas in NJ is actually cheaper despite the fact that NJ is all full service. So I thought maybe the gas tax in NY is significantly higher. According to wikipedia the difference is $.0678 per gallon. A quick search on gasbuddy of current prices in Trenton and Albany, two relatively small cities that don't have comparable non-red-hot real estate costs turned up the following:
Trenton:
Several non name brand gas stations ranging in the $2.39 - $2.45 price range
Name brand gas stations (Exxon/Conoco, etc) in the $2.69 - $2.74 range
Albany:
No discernable difference in price between generic and branded stations.
Cheapest single station $2.52
Median: around $2.58 - $2.60
Most expensive single station $2.85
Adding 7 cents to the full service NJ prices to account for the tax difference puts Trentonians exactly in the range that Albanians are paying for self service. And if people in both cities search out the cheapest option the Trentonian actually comes out ahead.
That's interesting!
Being a history buff, I can look back at my own life as a consumer of gasoline and remember when many gas stations had some pumps designated as full-serve and others designated as self-serve. The self-serve price was always several cents per gallon cheaper. I guess I'll have to look beyond the obvious to figure that one out all these years later.
The thing i found curious about the nj/ny differences is that nj name brand gas is significantly more expensive, but in ny it’s not.
Regarding the cost of employing gas jockeys i suppose it depends on the particulars of the station i routinely (well, as routinely as anyone who only drives about 4,000/miles per year) buy gas at an Arco station just north of the city that is always at least $.20 cheaper than anywhere else in the bay area. Lots of other people do too. All twelve pumps are always being utilized. A quick back of the envelope calculation of twelve cars per pump per hour buying an average of fifteen gallons each works out to $.0138 per gallon, assuming two minimum wage employees. A smaller or less busy station might not be as cost effective but if the station doesnt have a quicky mart then they could just make the existing booth worker go outside and pump gas and collect money instead of just collecting the occasional cash payment like they now do.
And the Democrat motto seems to be I don’t have it so let’s take yours.
I guess that's why HUD's budget is roughly half the amount that is saved by taxpayers who can afford to benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. Who exactly is subsidizing who...
I'm fine with republican selfishness of the "i've got mine, so **** all y'all" mentality. After all, trying to control what other people think is a fool's game. I just wish they'd be honest enough to own up to it. Personally I'll continue to drop roughly $35k/year in state/federal/withholding taxes until I retire and believe that it's a worthwhile price to pay to live in a great, if imperfect, country like the USA.
I'm fine with republican selfishness of the "i've got mine, so **** all y'all" mentality. After all, trying to control what other people think is a fool's game. I just wish they'd be honest enough to own up to it. Personally I'll continue to drop roughly $35k/year in state/federal/withholding taxes until I retire and believe that it's a worthwhile price to pay to live in a great, if imperfect, country like the USA.
+1
I guess that's why HUD's budget is roughly half the amount that is saved by taxpayers who can afford to benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. Who exactly is subsidizing who...
I'm fine with republican selfishness of the "i've got mine, so **** all y'all" mentality. After all, trying to control what other people think is a fool's game. I just wish they'd be honest enough to own up to it. Personally I'll continue to drop roughly $35k/year in state/federal/withholding taxes until I retire and believe that it's a worthwhile price to pay to live in a great, if imperfect, country like the USA.
if I only paid 35k a year I wouldn’t complain either. And I live in a low tax state. Nothing like working 50-60 hrs a week for years to help subsidize those who put in the minimum.
And im fine with doing away with all deductions, let’s all just pay the same rate. Then everyone would have some skin in the game.
A flat tax might work. The federal budget is approximately 21% of GDP. Let’s set it there. After all, people at the lower end of the income spectrum are already currently paying 15.3% and people at the top are likely paying between 15-20%. Bumping the rate to 21%, especially if we keep the standard deduction in place, shouldn’t hurt the poor or the rich too much and everyone in the middle would get a tax break.
I say throw out the standard deduction to. Let everyone pay on each dollar earned. Then set the percent on whatever is needed. Then everyone may be a little more interested in what the government spends our money on.
iris lilies
1-8-18, 10:11am
I say throw out the standard deduction to. Let everyone pay on each dollar earned. Then set the percent on whatever is needed. Then everyone may be a little more interested in what the government spends our money on.
There’s not only deductions, there are credits and there are exemptions. Just pay the damn tax, already, people!
I agree, everyone paying a little in gives fhem skin in the game.
A flat tax might work. The federal budget is approximately 21% of GDP. Let’s set it there. After all, people at the lower end of the income spectrum are already currently paying 15.3% and people at the top are likely paying between 15-20%. Bumping the rate to 21%, especially if we keep the standard deduction in place, shouldn’t hurt the poor or the rich too much and everyone in the middle would get a tax break.
That 21% limit would probably be impossible to sustain unless we're willing to put limits on entitlement spending growth. Paul Ryan and I would be willing to help you try.
iris lilies
1-8-18, 12:20pm
That 21% limit would probably be impossible to sustain unless we're willing to put limits on entitlement spending growth. Paul Ryan and I would be willing to help you try.
I am always comforted by the thought of grownups in the room. You two could take on the deficit in my book. Please also steal away the red button from The Trumpster.
I am always comforted by the thought of grownups in the room. You two could take on the deficit in my book. Please also steal away the red button from The Trumpster.
My wife suggested we get him a “busy box” like the one our daughter used to have. We could put a rally big red button with a “boom!’ “ sound effect.
That 21% limit would probably be impossible to sustain unless we're willing to put limits on entitlement spending growth. Paul Ryan and I would be willing to help you try.
Or we could cut the military budget to a reasonable level. Dmc said he wants people to care more about where the money goes. I'd much rather it go for healthcare and old age pensions than death and destruction.
Or we could cut the military budget to a reasonable level. Dmc said he wants people to care more about where the money goes. I'd much rather it go for healthcare and old age pensions than death and destruction.
Apart from the occasional utility of properly managed death and destruction, we could probably gut the military down to Canadian levels and still not save enough to cover the growth in entitlements for long.
Apart from the occasional utility of properly managed death and destruction, we could probably gut the military down to Canadian levels and still not save enough to cover the growth in entitlements for long.
What do you think we should do? What entitlements should be reined in? Who would lose out?
It just seems crazy to me that we increase the national debt to enrich people who don't need a thing, but while the "fiscally-responsible" Republicans are more than happy for the country to go into further indebtedness if it's going to benefit them, meanwhile, they're trying to figure out how to further impoverish the have-nots.
dmc said that he's rich because he's one of the deserving ones who earned his stuff by working 50-60 hours a week. Good for him. I have a strong work ethic, too, and I also regularly work 50-60 hours a week. I'm very lucky, but that doesn't make me special, and it doesn't make people who work long hours as teachers, landscapers, domestic workers, or social workers any less special because they chose a less lucrative, but no less demanding, line of work. And there are scores of people with incredible work ethic who work 50-60-70 hours a week and come home with not even enough to keep the roof over their heads. And there are lazy sons-of-guns in every social strata. But because the laziness of some is hidden behind a wall of inherited wealth and privilege, nobody notices.
I completely agree, Catherine.
Maybe if the oligarchs weren't so hell-bent on cutting taxes/revenue to the bone, we'd have the monies necessary to fund programs that benefit the rest of us.
ApatheticNoMore
1-8-18, 5:19pm
probably the only entitlement that is growing at a high rate is medicare and it's because medicine isn't working very well in the U.S. period. It makes no sense to group all entitlements in with the mess that is the U.S. healthcare system.
dmc said that he's rich because he's one of the deserving ones who earned his stuff by working 50-60 hours a week. Good for him. I have a strong work ethic, too, and I also regularly work 50-60 hours a week. I'm very lucky, but that doesn't make me special, and it doesn't make people who work long hours as teachers, landscapers, domestic workers, or social workers any less special because they chose a less lucrative, but no less demanding, line of work.
I think we should highly discourage 50-60 hour work weeks. They are not to be encouraged at all. They are pathology. But a few very few people have a great abiding passion for their work and nothing else but their work in life. Fine and maybe they are celibate and have no kids too (like Newton right?), but that really says nothing about the vast majority of cases where even when people like their jobs (and many don't), they also like their partners and their friends, and their families if they have them, and so need some time for them too (the cynical part of me says unsustainable work hours are usually sustained by women's unpaid labor, and if she works she also has a second shift doing housework, but ... I guess if one gets rich enough they can also hire everything out, get a maid and a cook).
In truth I was already putting in 50 hours for even a 40 hour a week job (and that's not counting housework), but I was only at work 40, as it's called commuting, add it right on top of the work hours if you are really going to estimate how much time work takes.
I would like to know exactly what you consider entitlements? I paid into Social Security and do NOT consider that an entitlement.
iris lilies
1-8-18, 5:57pm
I would like to know exactly what you consider entitlements? I paid into Social Security and do NOT consider that an entitlement.
It is always funny to me how up in arms some people get about the word “entitlement” commonly used in the description of federal government programs. Entitlement programs are simply those that guarantee certain benefits to a specific segment of the population. It is a common term used to separate them from other spending programs. The word is not pejorative and it doesnt imply that recipients should not have the benefit.
But, carry on, get all riled up if you like.
Personally, I like to get riled up about the IRS term “unearned income “ because hell, I EARNED the capital that is throwing off that interest and dividend income, and yeah, I earn those amounts, too. And my reaction is just as irrational as yours because “unearned” is just a technical term used to separate that money from other types of incoming monies.
Perhaps we could come up with new terms to replace earned and unearned income. How about workingman income and leisureman income?
iris lilies
1-8-18, 8:12pm
Perhaps we could come up with new terms to replace earned and unearned income. How about workingman income and leisureman income?
Yeah, no.
How about Income Type A and Income Type B.
Perhaps we could come up with new terms to replace earned and unearned income. How about workingman income and leisureman income?You know I don't even think liberals would go along with this, when their ideological partners start defining leisure they'd likely feel triggered as they lose their repressed status and are pushed into the ranks of oppressors.
Yeah, no.
How about Income Type A and Income Type B.
That kind of correlates with type A vs. type B personalities...
Perhaps someday soon President Oprah will be in a position to instruct us as to which money is worthy of our sympathy and which money must be punished.
Wall mart increasing wages and giving out bonuses due to new tax law.
Bastards.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/walmart-raise-starting-wage-11-125957919.html
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.