Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
MikeyMicron
2251 Followers
adam jones
11736 Followers
BeShirtHappy
13460 Followers
Skateboarding
6163 Followers
Spider Man
75 Followers
Louie Baur
20261 Followers
Shawn-ITC518
5173 Followers
mikeymicronSep 19, 2011Submitter
FTA:Also note the larger policy context here. President Obama wants the richest of the rich to pay a little more, but keep tax breaks in place for the middle class. Paul Ryan and his cohorts want the polar opposite — more breaks for the very wealthy and higher taxes for the middle class.
ridgerunner5Sep 19, 2011
Can you show me what bills Ryan has proposed that would raise taxes on only the middle class?
ridgerunner5Sep 19, 2011
Damn, buried deep.
u2canfailSep 20, 2011
Will SLAVE LABOR do?
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/19/322861/paul-ryan-endorses-unemployment-reform-that-makes-the-jobless-work-more-for-less/
ridgerunner5Sep 20, 2011
$1320 a month tax free, PLUS they continue to get their unemployment benefits?
Doesn't sound too bad.
canpantherSep 20, 2011
Put your money where your mouth is. Donate everything you make over and above that $1320/month (plus your unemployment benefits) to a registered charity for the next 10 years. Let's just see if that's good enough for you and your family to live on.
coolbivekSep 20, 2011
You think that's what most Millionaires do?
rjoplingSep 20, 2011
i think you read it wrong. why would they pay a min wage and unemployment and still call it slave labor? they pay for gas and childcare, thats it. its free labor for 6 months. and whats saying that it will even help afterwards? why would they hire anyone when they get free labor? and to top it all off, can you really believe Obama is going it reintroduce slavery? your a moron and Ryan is turning into the next Hitler. whats next "work" camps?
u2canfailSep 20, 2011
Privatized prisons already have "work camps" a captive group, they put to work for their friends and keep the profits, meanwhile charging taxpayers for prisoner support costs.
ridgerunner5Sep 20, 2011
So it's an internship, then.
rjoplingSep 21, 2011
its like an internship that you dont want and cant leave. also you get the added benefit of the companys ONLY hiring the free labor and never really helping stop the unemployment problem.
JustSayNoPartySep 20, 2011
In Michigan, they taxed unemployment benefits. For the first six months, I'd prefer the 'unemployed' to look for their next job and retool if necessary.
u2canfailSep 20, 2011
We can always hope an "intern" takes your job, less pay, more profit! Slave labor will end your job too.
dkonigsbachSep 20, 2011
Ryan supports Hensarling's plan to let payroll tax reductions expire. That will increase taxes on the middle class.
ridgerunner5Sep 20, 2011
But when Obama suggests the same with the Bush tax cuts, it's not?
rjoplingSep 21, 2011
i wanna say he plans to keep whats good about the bush tax cuts, ie. helping the people who need it compared to helping the ones who got us here.
omgscienceSep 19, 2011
Or better yet define "Middle Class".
kartman2001Sep 20, 2011
I'd say it doesn't include people that make less than $1,000,000.00
canpantherSep 19, 2011
Straight from the horses mouth:
Majority Leader Hoyer: Middle Class Tax Increases Now Needed?
http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/10/06/29/majority-leader-hoyer-middle
Both ridgerunner and omgscience can now suck it.
monvalleySep 19, 2011
You are miss-informed, but suppose you are right; which of these two groups creates jobs? And provides institutions for you to invest, both of which creates wealth for you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailSep 20, 2011
BUSH TAX CUTs first passed in 2001, how many years do they actually need to create those jobs? Seems to me, the idea has failed.
JustSayNoPartySep 20, 2011
Interesting that we also now hear the political ploy loud and clear that Obama wants to raise taxes. Yep, another 'tax and spend' liberal. Except, he actually is looking to end 'tax breaks' to the wealthy that were supposed to be Temporary. How many people not in that top 1% will believe he's looking to raise 'their taxes'?
I'm not a huge Obama fan. But, this type of political gamesmanship annoys me.
canpantherSep 20, 2011
Consumer demand creates jobs, not spoiled rich people. Without it, they'd only have a bad business plan and would be just as broke as everyone else.
Oh, right! That doesn't happen since the gov't has decided that socialism begins at the top and keeps giving them money for bad business decisions.
monvalleySep 20, 2011
You're right, consumer demand creates jobs provided by poor people who own the company that employees people. Obviously a public school graduate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
canpantherSep 20, 2011
You're bragging about your education now? A public school graduate. Believe me, I'm not as impressed as you want me to be.
monvalleySep 20, 2011
No, I'm making fun of your logic.
canpantherSep 20, 2011
It's a circle and it all starts with consumer demand. It drives the whole economy. Companies are created to hire people to manufacture goods to meet consumer demand. And while it doesn't take a rich person to start a new company, THERE HAS TO BE A DEMAND FOR THE PRODUCT FIRST. But if the average person can't afford to buy s**t, then warehouses sit full of product, businesses fail, people are out of work, all because consumer demand has dropped.
My logic is sound. I think you are the one who needs to go back to school, troll. :)))
kartman2001Sep 20, 2011
Yeah all those trickle down jobs are going to start being created any day now. Oh wait Big Business is creating jobs, just overseas, even with the decade of tax cuts.
treehugger87Sep 19, 2011
The fact that the GOP is pushing for tax cuts for the rich and a tax increase for everyone else is a notion that not too long ago would have had them wholesale laughed out of office. Now, thanks to an extensive network of corporate propaganda disguised as right-wing television and radio talk shows, the idea makes perfect sense to some percentage of the population. This is how Democracy dies, people.
mikeymondaviSep 19, 2011
I didn't see the proposal for raising taxes on the middle class. Can you point that out to me?
mogwuySep 19, 2011
Here you go: http://www.politicususa.com/en/gop-tax-hike
ridgerunner5Sep 19, 2011
How about a reliable source? Politicususa has a long history of making up lies to support their rhetoric.
miklkitSep 19, 2011
You didn't read the article, did you?
It has quotes from your fearless leaders, like Leader Cantor.
But don't worry. you will be getting many more chances to read it in the future. Bookmarked.
mikeymondaviSep 19, 2011
I read the article, and from what i can tell its opinion. I don't see where he's linking to any language in the actual proposal, nor where it specifically mentions tax brackets. Don't get me wrong, i'm not playing sides here as i have no love of either (keynesians are keynesians, regardless of social issues) but i'm not seeing anything that tells me anything past opinion and conjecture.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailSep 20, 2011
Quotes are not evidence, that is not what they use on FAUX NEWS! ridge only accepts faux
ridgerunner5Sep 21, 2011
Seems like everytime you go to criticize me, u2, I have to remind you that I don't watch Fox News, nor do I care for any of their hosts.
omgscienceSep 19, 2011
@mogwuy
Can you cite a non-bat s**t crazy left wing hype machine source? It's like using a Rush Limbaugh publication as a source to prove liberals are bad...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Schweppesale2Sep 19, 2011
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gop+raising+taxes+on+middle+class
here you go:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-will-raise-taxes--on-the-middle-class-and-working-poor/2011/08/23/gIQAEDJuZJ_story.html
mikeymondaviSep 19, 2011
Harold Meyerson
Opinion Writer
johnmosbySep 20, 2011
Dude, it's common knowledge that the GOP wants to up the payroll tax. f**king google it you nab.
PyriteGenieSep 20, 2011
What's the difference - specifically - between the payroll tax and the income tax?
vbdonSep 19, 2011
politicsusa.com is not a legitimate link. Most of what they print is outright lies. Citing them proves you are wrong.
bookantSep 20, 2011
You misspelled "FOX."
canpantherSep 19, 2011
It's about time Obama grew a pair.
This strategy will definitely help the Democrats in the coming elections, painting the Republicans as the party who supports class warfare and highlighting the hypocrisy of their stance on tax cuts for the rich with tax increases for everyone else.
monvalleySep 19, 2011
The presidential flim-flam man has now become President Bluster.
canpantherSep 19, 2011
The Republicans are calling it class warfare so who exactly are the ones blustering? It ain't Obama.
monvalleySep 20, 2011
It certainly is president bluster who stands next to a podium and blusters out lies and accusations and tries to incite his base to vote for him. This president is irrelevant and few listen to his bluster.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
canpantherSep 20, 2011
You can stop reading from the Republican playbook anytime. Think for yourself. You have a brain, small as it is, use it.
u2canfailSep 20, 2011
RYAN also supports "SLAVE LABOR" http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/19/322861/paul-ryan-endorses-unemployment-reform-that-makes-the-jobless-work-more-for-less/
canpantherSep 20, 2011
Republicans are disgusting. There is one GOPer (I can't remember his name off-hand) who is suggesting the creation of economic 'free' zones within the US, where there is no minimum wage, no child labour or union laws, with very little environmental/workplace regulation and less taxation. He believes that allowing companies to match the business environments in other countries will help the US and its citizens. He is basically asking for the same thing: pure slave labour with no oversight.
Closed AccountSep 20, 2011
where do you think your car, sneakers, and motherboard were made, in the workers utopia of southeast asia? wake up, you are part of the problem, the solution is stop buying imported goods.
canpantherSep 20, 2011
Simple solutions from simple minds.
You might as well say the solution is for domestic companies to stop exporting jobs and to hire locally.
It'll get you just as far.
Closed AccountSep 20, 2011
Would you support a law prohibiting or limiting US companies from using overseas labor?
canpantherSep 20, 2011
Nope, 'cause I'm Canadian and that would seriously screw up our economy, as your 'Buy American' restrictions have always done. We are currently lobbying to make sure we are excluded from them if they are included in your jobs package as well. We are your biggest trade partner and our labour costs are on par with yours, if not higher.
I wouldn't support our own version in Canada either. Our trade imbalance isn't as bad and our economy is more diversified, with resource exports making a big difference. Yes, our manufacturing sector has slowed, but not as much as the US because of more foreign investment and companies operating in Canada and importing to the US. Toyota has two large auto plants in my area, and Honda has one about 2 hours away, in Alliston, Ontario. Both just expanded too.
Closed AccountSep 20, 2011
why are Asian auto factories moving to Canada and US factories moving to Asia?
canpantherSep 20, 2011
It's probably a combination of things: a more positive business environment, our universal healthcare, tax breaks, proximity to the US market and needed resources, a skilled local labour force. Workers start @ around $25/hr,.non-unionized. But it's a bitch to get hired, a whole series of interviews, not just one or two.
darbymsu82Sep 19, 2011
We have a case of the 'Pot calling the Kettle Black'....
poesprogenySep 20, 2011
Be careful, there are some who would say that comment was racist.
austinjameshereSep 19, 2011
Republicans have asked the middle class to shoulder the burden of debt this nation has occurred alone... I think it's only fair for the ultra rich to chip in.
stonecircleSep 19, 2011
Always use a clean plate for every trip to the Buffett. And never, never ask for a to-go container.
mmysamaSep 19, 2011
I've been taxed enough already. I'm voting for the guy who wants me to pay less in taxes, I'm voting for Obama.
timelessbwSep 19, 2011
How do you figure he wants to raise your taxes? Are you rich?
karmashockSep 20, 2011
The president is politically bankrupt. No one is passing anything from him.
Congress is going to do something and the president can veto that if he wants but the days when he could propose anything are over.
tippyskierSep 20, 2011
Let's raise taxes on the Dem rich, all are seemingly agreeable,.......... problem solved.
rob04Sep 20, 2011
Way to go Buffett - screw everyone else that's not uber-rich but just rich!
phydeaux70Sep 19, 2011
Here are the rules:
Any tax increase will be called 'class warfare' by the GOP.
Any reform in any entitlement will be called 'Draconian' by the Democrats.
Any filibuster by the Democrats is 'standing up for what's right'
Any filibuster by the GOP is 'obstructionism'
Any person who is in a Union is 'a middle class worker'
Any person who makes over $200,000 a year is a 'job creator' and 'rich'
All 'rich' people are not greedy idiots, and not all 'workers' are idiots. I know union workers that live in $400K homes, and I know 'rich' people that give more to charity than many people make in a year. People who make $200,000 are not millionaires. People who are in the 47% of people who don't pay any Federal taxes are not all freeloaders.
Regardless of political affiliation the government needs to spend less than it takes in. Not in 10 years, not in 20....now. If that means brining our troops home, so be it. If it means reducing the size of the Federal payroll, that's fine too.
I get sick and tired of hearing the Washington blame game. This isn't about rich and poor, this is about American Citizens versus power hungry politicians.
Politicians are the reason we are $14,.5 trillion in debt. Politicians are the reason that public debt has increased 39% in the past 3 years. The People of the country get the shaft and the politicians get away with it.
In the years of 2000-2006 I place 100% blame on the GOP. Since 2007 the Democrats have controlled Congress and they get the blame. I credit the GOP when Clinton was in office, and I credit the Democrats when Reagan was in office.
Just as Obama said 'We don't need a Constitutional Amendment to balance our books, we just need to act responsibly.' Well...we also don't need a new law for people to pay more taxes.....if they are feeling generous write a check. Annouce the names of the people with the greatest congtributions in a speech or something. But stop with the bitching and do something instead of dividing people.
/rant over
ridgerunner5Sep 19, 2011
I love you.
canpantherSep 19, 2011
You can cut all you want, but there also needs to be a hike in revenues. If the poor and middle class are expected to tighten their belts, then the rich should chip in as well.
It's called balance. So stop bitching about it.
phydeaux70Sep 19, 2011
Get a job. There you go...revenue to the government is increased.
Uncertainty about government regulation and future costs are what is keeping trillions in the banks and not in business.
If you want balance and Pharoah Obama says, you don't do it by singling out one group of people. That's not balance.
Balance means a state in which various parts form a satisfying and harmonious whole and nothing is out of proportion or unduly emphasized at the expense of the rest.
If you think taxing the 'rich' more won't make it's way down to the poor folk who buy their products you've not only graduated from Obama's school of Business, but are it's Valedictorian.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
canpantherSep 19, 2011
Since a lot of your manufacturing jobs have been shifted to countries with low-cost labour, it's pretty difficult to find for the average worker to find a good one in your country, isn't it?
There's been an imbalance in favour of the rich for the last decade. Now it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way. Trickle-down economics hasn't been working too well for spreading the wealth either.
Schweppesale2Sep 19, 2011
more like it's been concentrating the hell out of it:
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/
phydeaux70Sep 19, 2011
Items like that have nothing to do with trickle down economics, they are macro economics of scale.
If you have a billion it's easier to invest $50 million and make money. If you have $1000 you can't go and play the stock market with $10 and hope for the same return.
The issue you referenced is a funny side note to a greater problem. Notice Michael Moore doesn't give away his millions. He even sued his business partners for a greater percentage of movie sales.
Greed is only bad when it's the other guy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phydeaux70Sep 19, 2011
There are a couple of issues that make it more complex. First is the definition of 'average'.
An average worker in America is probably considered wealthy to most others around the world. Being poor in America means having cell phones, two TVs, a car etc.
The entire system is rigged to favor the rich and it will be that way for a long time. Did you know that only the elite in the country are eligible to participate in an IPO when a company goes public? That means only the wealthiest had the opportunity to make huge sums of money.
There are people who work on the factory line in America that make upwards of $50 an hour.
Corporations are legally obligated to maximize their profits, and can be sued if they fail to do so. So if you have the opportunity to move to a lower labor market, why wouldn't you? Thomas Friedman in his book 'The World is Flat' talks about this very topic. If a business fails to adapt to the 'new world' it will soon be out of business.
Why pay workers benefit packages over $75 an hour or more when you can get buy with 1/8th of that? Better yet...do they need compensation packages of $75 an hour? Talk to the labor unions about that.
Everybody is trying to maximize. When workers do it, it's considered fair, when companies do it, it's greedy. And it's all the same flavor of beverage.
The problem is that our current administration wants to treat the symptom and not the problem.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
canpantherSep 19, 2011
You'd have to be a driveling idiot to think that I wasn't talking about the 'average' American, ESPECIALLY when I said 'in your country' to qualify it.
Oh, wait...
canpantherSep 19, 2011
"The entire system is rigged to favor the rich and it will be that way for a long time. "
Nothing like shooting yourself in the ass. Thanks for the confirmation.
mikelistSep 19, 2011
nah, not really. the low capital gains tax really does more to make sure the rich can get richer without involving the middle class in the transaction than regulations or taxes (biggest growth has historically corresponded with times of highest tax on the wealthy).
monvalleySep 19, 2011
Take a good look at the poor, their belts certainly haven't been tightened.
omgscienceSep 19, 2011
If the "people" were not such idiots there would be no division. Both parties know exactly what they are doing. The GOP will take power in 2012 and then we will get tired of them and put Dems back in charge and the cycle will repeat. Americans are stupid, greedy fat children that will never do anything of significant again as long as this trend keeps up. All they can do is revel in the glory of past American generations who have all but died out in shame at what the nation they helped build has become.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartySep 19, 2011
Spot on. Brush, rinse, repeat. You've hit on precisely my feelings regarding our political folly. Keep switching parties and keep getting the same result. We really have been living off the benefits of leading the Industrial Revolution. What's the next 'big thing' that will keep the U.S. as a leader?
Take a look at Detroit. The city thrived as the Car Manufacturer of the world. That city grew to almost 2 million people. How many people live there now? You can only live so long on past successes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtownSep 19, 2011
"Well...we also don't need a new law for people to pay more taxes.....if they are feeling generous write a check. Annouce the names of the people with the greatest congtributions in a speech or something."
Unfortunately, it's gonna take a LOT more than a few people writing checks to fix this...
phydeaux70Sep 19, 2011
You are correct.
Obama's been in charge for 3 years and has increased the debt owed by the public over 59% of the total it has taken hundreds of years to accumulate.
It's like dealing my kids. I'm not going to give you my car until you can prove you can take care of your items of significance. Obama needs to reduce the size of government and show people that he's serious.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
publiclurkerSep 19, 2011
Nearly all of that debt is due to butting bush's wars of choice onto the books for once, and having to repair the damage cause by the incompetence , greed and general moral failure of you and people like you. Now when it comes time for the damage you've caused to be paid for, you start whining about the check and trying to find some way to get out of paying the price for your own actions.
Well, the adults are getting tired of bailing our your sorry excuse of an ass.
ultimisSep 20, 2011
http://costofwar.com/en/
Includes the cost of the neare 3 years Obama has been president. So no, the deficit is not from that. 10 years of war is less than a single year of the deficit.
JustSayNoPartySep 19, 2011
That's where people lose me. Obama didn't increase that debt. One man didn't do that. There's a lot of factors leading to debt skyrocketing (including a horrible economy and natural escalations).
ultimisSep 20, 2011
They hold him accountable for the stimulus and bailouts. But yes he is unfairly blamed for the deficit when spending has been growing substantially for decades. What's fair is a lot of the spending are democratic programs that have been running in the red ink for a long time and continue to get worse. Mandatory spending is a growing % of the total budget every year with no overhauls for those programs within sight.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartySep 20, 2011
Yes, that's fair. Still, I support Social Security and Medicare. I hope to have medicare when I retire. Otherwise, not sure I'll be able to afford insurance and company retirement packages are a thing of the past.
ultimisSep 20, 2011
As those programs stand now I doubt they will be around by the time I retire.
On another note while they do provide benefits for the populace, I still feel they are unconstitutional. Either an amendment needs to be passed or these programs need to be run by the states (assuming the states have it within their constitutions to run these programs).
There is the Republican idea of Health savings accounts. Though I'm not completely familiar with it.
I'm still fairly young and I'm sure I'll be fine with or without medicare/SS as I'm planning my retirement far in advanced. I'm absolutely 100% certain that I could invest my money more wisely than placing it in either of those programs (where I would have significantly better coverage when I get old).
Personally I'm against the whole concept of insurance companies and wish they were out of the picture. I would like to negotiate with my doctor directly. This is how they used to do it, but there were pricing problems involved in that system.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anonadminSep 19, 2011
I have an idea, seeing as we are so far in debt. How about the Senate, the House, and the president don't get pay checks until the debt is paid off. I bet the they would come up with a way to pay it real quick and then work to not have any more debt.
timelessbwSep 19, 2011
I like it.
johnmosbySep 20, 2011
f**king stupid idea, for so many reasons.
JustSayNoPartySep 19, 2011
Very strong comment. Stop buying in to 'talking points' of either party and address the real issues. Our divisions (inability to reach across and negotiate) is tearing the country apart. With that said, I do still believe mass cuts now would be a bad idea. At a time when everyone else is pulling money from the economy, would it not be wise to have targeted cuts and targeted job creation efforts (infrastructure) now? As the economy gets more on its feet, then 'uptick' cuts and sharply focus (reduce size of government). Thoughts?
tippyskierSep 20, 2011
To try and direct funding to the actual job creators, small business, would be too obvious, and a non sequituir to our government.
JustSayNoPartySep 20, 2011
Yea, that's a big part of the problem. Government is so damn inefficient. Someone was telling me last week how the Government in their town tore up a new street and repaved (with stimulus money). I don't know the details. But, I do understand that many of the projects actually completed were 'not needed'.
tippyskierSep 20, 2011
I recently consulted on a local high school project. Stimulus money was used to replace controllers on each air handling unit in every room, approx 200, the air conditioning units were replaced, along with the existing roof top chillers. It will take approx twenty years to offset the cost with utility savings. Due to it's age this school will most probably be gone by then.
JustSayNoPartySep 20, 2011
Great. This is so infuriating knowing that much of our infrastructure actually does need to be fixed. I support stimulus spending on needed projects (horribly outdated electric infrastructure). But then, we get crap like this.
ultimisSep 20, 2011
I think you're not going to get a lot of support from Republicans/Independents on this purely because we/they feel we did this already with the stimulus. Keynesian economics is about big government spending during recessions and surpluses during the good times. Has our federal government ever shown it's willing to run a surplus and not spend it all? We have lost faith in the government doing the right thing, so Keynesian economics (whether you believe in it or not) will fail ultimately in terms of being deficit neutral.
While spending is a way of "spurring" the economy. What the economy needs is confidence. How we get that confidence is up in the air. Republicans claim that reducing taxes and loosening the regulations will help, democrats claim more spending will help. There is this notion that Bush reduced regulations thus led to the financial collapse. Yet he did nothing of the sort during his presidency.
Confidence and innovation are needed. You can either trust the markets to do this, or you don't. Recessions are a natural part of a economic cycle.
JustSayNoPartySep 20, 2011
Thank you. These are very good comments. Thus, you won't find me to be a 'liberal' or conservative. I believe both sides do us 'no favors'. I support a Federal Balanced Budged amendment exactly because of what you state. Government spends during the 'high times' and 'low times'. The deficit is a huge issue and must, over time, be addressed.
I also prefer the free market (a true free market) operating with only basic regulations ensuring fair competition and environmental protections. Today, we don't have a 'free market'. Hopefully, that market would lead to strong activity among small and mid-sized businesses. The consolidation in the Medea sector (as an example) concerns me.
Thus, label me an Independent. I'm not thrilled with either side.
ultimisSep 20, 2011
On these issues we can agree. While you may be a independent, you seem to come down on the side of democrats more often than not.
A balanced budget amendment would go a long way in restoring trust in the government. I guess it's not really trust, but restoring confidence. I think it unlikely the politicians in D.C. will put such restraints on themselves.
JustSayNoPartySep 20, 2011
Independent leaning left.
I support:
* A balanced budget amendment
* A Fair Tax
* Strong immigration reform and even a national ID card.
* I don't support Universal Health Care.
* I support a smaller Federal Government with many decisions pushed down to the local levels (but the devil is in the details)
I am a strong environmentalist. I believe we have done great harm to the environment around us to our own peril. And, I believe the growing income divide is going to be a huge problem. The masses will only be silent for so long.
Thus, I guess I'm a mixed bag. People just want to categorize everyone else in to two tidy little bins.
ultimisSep 20, 2011
I consider myself a constitutional conservative republican.
Constitutional: I believe in the rule of law. Consistency. Tracability. Judicial activism and a large portion of "precedent" is mostly bulls**t. Some of it is needed (thus the reason the supreme court exists) but they have clearly over stepped the bounds of what the court was intended to do.
Conservative: I'm both a fiscal and social conservative. My reasoning for both is different from others. I'm probably not as extreme on social issues as the religious right. For instance stim cell research from embryos doesn't bother me. Though I still think they should try and pursue other methods as the easiest is not always the best path forward. Right now fiscal matters of the country are more important, but I perceive some major culture failures that do have economic and political impacts on this country.
Neo-conservative: I believe in a aggressive foreign policy. I'm less concerned with this as I was in the past due to our massive deficit problems and infrastracture problems here at home. But I'm completely against isolationism which is essentially preached by the libertarians and Ron Paul supporters here on digg. Much of my beliefs in this area stim off of WWII "Never again". We don't live in a world of muskets where we can hide behind our borders. We live in a world of nuclear weapons and intertwined economies. What happens overseas has a direct impact on us. In WWII we decided that the cocerns of Europe are not our problem. We paid dearly for not getting involved sooner.
Republican: I understand that "coalition" parties are necessary. Even though we have a "two party system" those parties are a coalition of political ideas and beliefs. Even if we changed our system away from a two party system we could probably still end up with coalitions that look very similar to what we have now. So it's best to ally with those closest to you in beliefs and do your best to persuade them that your ideas are the best :). No person is a "one issue" person. But we do have priorities of what we considered most important.
-I agree with a balanced budget amendment.
-A fair tax I'm not sure about. It's definitely better than the flat tax and is leagues better than the current tax code. Simplifying it will help this country leaps and bounds.
-National ID card seems reasonable. I think it would require a constitutional amendment though. Not that poilticians care about such things.
-Univeral Healthcare would not be good for our country. Our current laws/system does need a overhaul though.
-Over all local governments are a better focus for the people. Currently we are quite a bit disconneted with the federal government. What's best for New York is not neccesarily best for California. And a healthy dose of competittion between states wouldn't be a bad thing.
I don't think CO2 should be considered a pollutant. And I think enviromental concerns are best handled locally and not by some buercrat sitting in D.C. I think the EPA should be focused on supporting state/local governments not dictating to them.
Based on your discussion here you seem like a independent. Based on past comments I feel like you fit within the Democratic party big tent coalition. It's hard to say, but I'm sure everyone feels they're a "independent" on some level.
vbdonSep 19, 2011
Obama can't do that. Dividing people by race, income, education, national origin, religion, etc. is what the Democratic Party is all about.
merainydaySep 19, 2011
The war is on BIG BOYS... don't get comfy.
Closed AccountSep 19, 2011
buffet is fighting his tax bill, he owes 1 billion in back tax since 2002. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html
tippyskierSep 20, 2011
That would be, "negotiating" his tax bill........ LOL
tippyskierSep 19, 2011
Oh,.. the do as I say, not as I do, rule?
kaegroSep 19, 2011
?
tippyskierSep 19, 2011
!
kaegroSep 19, 2011
¿
ridgerunner5Sep 19, 2011
i
kaegroSep 19, 2011
♣
angrycat70Sep 20, 2011
Raise taxes on the rich. Go ahead.
Watch as an army of tax attorneys and accountants go to work building impregnable tax shelters and we actually end up making less tax revenue than we did at lower rates.
The higher the tax rate, the greater the incentive to shelter the money in long term investments and trusts. It pays to encumber the money and defer the taxes.
Tax the rich makes for a much better slogan than tax policy.
Digg me down if you wish but that's the reality of finance.
canpantherSep 20, 2011
"Watch as an army of tax attorneys and accountants go to work building impregnable tax shelters and we actually end up making less tax revenue than we did at lower rates."
Bulls**t. They are ALWAYS trying to minimize their tax burden anyway. That's why GE and many other companies making billions of dollars in profit don't pay any taxes now. Zip, zero, nadda, NOTHING. In fact, some get refunds from the government. How sick is that?
It's about time to start closing the loopholes that allow them to do it, that allows them to keep trillions of dollars offshore, away from the IRS and their civic responsibilities as an American company. So what are you losing? Nothing. But you are gaining income which was supposed to be yours to begin with.
That's the reality of your finances NOW.
angrycat70Sep 21, 2011
>>That's the reality of your finances NOW.
That's a fantasy. Who do you think created those tax shelters and loopholes in the first place? One hint: you find them in congress and the senate.
One of the biggest "loopholes" is the mortgage interest deduction- kill it and what's left of the real estate market tanks and takes the banks with it.
Those politicians that you hear bawling about taxing the rich? They are sitting on trust funds and all you can tax is the amount paid out.
Get Kennedy, Kerry and Rockefeller to pierce their trust funds and you might be onto something. Otherwise- they are just grandstanding.
Closed AccountSep 19, 2011
I've always thought it interesting that Buffet states his belief in raising taxes on the rich, yet his company Bershire is currently fighting over $1B in back taxes that the IRS says that he owes. Hypocrisy such as this is the mark of a Democrat.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ricksiteSep 19, 2011
Buffett says rich people should pay more in taxes. What is stopping him from paying more?
Schweppesale2Sep 19, 2011
I don't know, common sense?
ricksiteSep 19, 2011
I think Buffett will somehow benefit more from the taxes paid by other rich people than he will be hurt by the taxes he pays.
Schweppesale2Sep 19, 2011
???
Come on man - be serious.
He's suggesting that they all pay more - but you already know that.
You're trying too hard.
vbdonSep 19, 2011
Buffet wants everybody, except him, to pay more taxes.
ricksiteSep 19, 2011
I have heard many of the super rich say they could pay more in taxes but I don't understand why they require the government to force it out of them. Are they not allowed to pay more than is calculated on their taxes? They could probably make a donation to the government. I personally don't want to pay more and I wouldn't appreciate it if people were suggesting I should pay more. I think the government needs to end the overseas wars and put the money towards paying down debt before they squeeze more money out of its citizens.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JonathonFishenatorSep 19, 2011
Strawman.
The_SovereignSep 19, 2011
Tax laws that he wants changed.
publiclurkerSep 19, 2011
right. Parasites like you always want someone else to pick up the check for your own failures. how about you pretend to be man enough to deal with the disasters you've caused instead of asking your betters to always suffer the cost.
JustSayNoPartySep 19, 2011
It's really not a good argument to attack Buffet by saying he could just pay more taxes voluntarily. He's rightfully calling for a change in the system. He's pointing out that those who actually control this country (the wealthy) are winning the class warfare and not paying their fair share. Simply paying more wouldn't address this.
martin92003Sep 20, 2011
The Republicans already declared class warfare on the middle class with their policy's, the prez is responding, and it is about time he did.
PyriteGenieSep 20, 2011
The only Buffett Rule that makes sense is this one: Screw the clock, pour me a margarita.
photek00Sep 20, 2011
As a billionaire, I know what's best for working class people. Do what I say and cut my taxes some more. Now!
Better yet, pass a free trade agreement so the stuff I buy is cheaper, and you have to compete with overseas labor.
Or better yet, keep inflation so low, that you never see a wage increase, and are stuck paying your mortgage the rest of your life.
But don't increase my taxes or your starting class warfare.
monvalleySep 19, 2011
Oh crap; obama must have made another lecture today, the stock market went down 108 points.
barackalypseSep 19, 2011
Lets see the Government sacrifice first with some actual spending cuts (slowing the rate of increase is not a spending cut). As we've been seeing for decades the Government can always spend more than it earns.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ricksiteSep 19, 2011
I wish that could happen. Cue the people who are going to accuse you of wanting to eliminate firefighters and police officers. It would be nice to hear congress say they are going to eliminate congressional pensions prior to raising taxes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
publiclurkerSep 19, 2011
You mean like how perry cut firefighters by 75% and then went whining to Obama to bail out his sorry ass? Baggers like you have already been screwing over the people who do your work for you about as far as possible.
And only people as economically incompetent as you would think that eliminating their pensions (not that it's not a good idea) would go anywhere near the amount of money needed.
Look I understand you childlike whining about not wanting to do your part to clean up after yourself. I've had young children myself. They grew up. Why don't you?
linuxpersonSep 19, 2011
Wow, it can write more than one sentence. I'm surprised.
publiclurkerSep 19, 2011
No, it's just your inability to read more than a single sentence. Who helped you with the big words?
ricksiteSep 19, 2011
You are making my point. People who want responsible government are marginalized. Eliminating pensions wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket but it would be a huge gesture that congress is serious about getting spending under control. I don't know why you would think I would like what Perry is doing. I can't stand him or Obama.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rodgere1Sep 20, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-0lAhnoDlU&ob=av3n
Aerosmith idea!
monvalleySep 19, 2011
obama's buffett rule; assure that buffett does not pay the $1 billion in unpaid taxes, like obama's cabinet members, and then use him as an example for a debt-reduction idea. Pays to be a friend of obama. Just like obama's jobs czar, who also pays no taxes. This incompetent president should be renamed President Bluster.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
canpantherSep 20, 2011
No matter how many times you repeat that, it's not going to stick or win anyone over. But, then again, I guess they didn't teach psychology in your grade school. Too advanced.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.