Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: If you vote republican you are voting against yourself

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 12, 2011, 1:04 a.m. EST by SPORTCARX (21)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

They made billions .. bankrupted the system .. the government bails them out and they pay themselves a big bonus with the money. Then they get a 2nd round of money at "zero" interest rate and what do they do? Invest in T-bills and the stock market. No loans for small business.

If you vote republican you are voting for the top 1%. and voting against yourself. Ask your self are you in the top 1%? or are you a part of the 99%. Yes you may be against abortion, gun control and you go to church and pray to god. I respect your view points but what matters most is your wallet and your survival. The Republican party is great at manipulating the facts and dividing us. The Democratic Party has no balls to stand up to them and is also influenced by lobbyist but at least they stand up for you.

Republicans want to repeal Medicare... have fun trying to buy medical insurance when you turn 65. You think its expensive now? LOL Just wait and see. Go ahead vote Republican and bend over.. its going to hurt.

I am 100% for capitalism.. and happy for anyone who knows how to make a honest dollar. I do not believe in redistribution of wealth. But People and corporations who make multi million dollars certainly can afford to give back the BUSH TAX CUTS and pay another 3%. Hedge funds Managers only pay 15% tax on their on some of their earnings. Many of them earn 10 million- 100 million a year. A self employed single person earning between $40,000 and $100,000 living in the City of Philadelphia has to pay 25% to Federal government 13% to Social security 3% to Pennsylvania 7% to the City 38% total. Are you kidding me? Warren Buffet only pays 15% tax on his dividends... no wonder he says his secretary pays more tax then him. Today we hear republican politicians say we most cut back on entitlements Remember the word entitlement means: An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. If you pay into social security you should be entitled to collect what you deserve. Over the last 3 years senior citizens have not had one penny increase in their social security benefits. Are you kidding me? No wonder this economy is about to crash. Corporations earn more money because they are getting their help for less. Employees are being forced to do 2 jobs for the same pay and no increase in pay while cutting back on their benefits. If you pay into social security you should be entitled to collect what you deserve.

This movement is born out of frustration over the political system that has ruined this great country of ours. Obama is a big disappointment... he promised change but we got more of the same. The same cronies that were in power under Bush are still in power today. What do we have to look forward to in the next Election? NO CHOICE FOR REAL CHANGE

103 Comments

103 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by ThirdParty2012 (52) 2 years ago

Once we can can drift ourselves out of this Democrat versus Republic mentality, and realize that BOTH parties equally participated in the economic demise, we can all move forward with real change. For now, both parties continually obstruct the very means available to disrupt their strangle-hold on power .. term limits and campaign finance. Until then, you're right.. no choice for real change.

[-] 4 points by Frankie (733) 2 years ago

Very good. Why we can't get a viable third-party in this country and truly competent individuals in government, I don't know.

If nothing else, just the presense of a third entity in the picture immediately causes a focus on the issues and gets us away from the mindless us -vs- them bullshit.

[-] 2 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 2 years ago

Look -- we don't need a third party. We don't need 20 parties.

You have to look back in time to understand why we even have "parties". When campaigning didn't put you in front of the majority of people - no one knew what you stood for. So parties allowed one to stand on a basic platform that people understood without ever having to hear the candidate.

The truth is we don't need parties. They are redundant in an era where we can see the plans of every candidate for every position online and elsewhere.

My unfleshed out suggestion is to take money completely out of campaigning. Let the campaigners actually speak to their purpose. For the presidency I would suggest a monthly debate for one year. Let the candidates actually speak to the people then. No double talk. No chance to tell this group one thing and this group another.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Out of campaigning is a start but only a start. It must also be removed from every aspect of governance. It buys regulators. It buys judges. It buys academics. It buys managers in the executive branch. It buys the press. We have to get its corrupting influence out of the whole process and that includes every level, federal. state and local.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Equally is a word that has meaning. It doesn't belong in that sentence because it obviously makes it untrue. The refusal to recognize fact has a lot to do with the situation. You could make your case without resorting to the same kind of misleading equivocation that the media does. Until then, you are just another prevaricator adding to the noise.

Liars often say "everybody lies" to make themselves equally credible with everyone else including those who do not lie. They are still just liars. Are you one of those?

[-] 1 points by dsteve01 (6) from Albuquerque, NM 2 years ago

I think we live in such a technological age that we no longer need to have political parties. Each individual in himself can congregate into interest groups that favor his opinions on certain subjects. You could also become your own media outlet.

A political system based on the internet. Direct Democracy. Give me positive feedback please.

[-] 3 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 2 years ago

Dems/Repubs two sides of the same coin.

[-] 2 points by BuddhaB (4) 2 years ago

SportCarX,

I see that you are a CPA and that you "understand the tax code and how it helps and hurts."

Also that you have your own list of special interest 'helps' which you'd like to see addressed in the next thousand pages of tax law including more preference shown to folks who use child care, more benefits for those who lose money in the stock market and, for some reason, more tax-based 'helps' for people who find themselves paying high-risk rates on unsecured signature debt.

I don't doubt one bit that those interests are special. To you. And perhaps to your small business clients and to many others. However, not one of them would 'help' me.

Though I certainly can list numerous tax code changes which definitely would help me, personally. For example:

How about more goodies for me because I work at home half the time? It's really just a money thing to me, but if I couched it in silly save-the-planet rhetoric, then half plus one in Congress might agree that I deserve to get by with less skin in the tax revenue game. Come on Congressman PollWatcher, it's for our Mother - vote 'yes' on the Give-a-Hoot-Don't-Commute tax credit.

Or this, I've got kids too whom we've raised without expensive outside care. But it did cost our family in terms of the lost potential income of my currently stay-at-home wife. Income which could have bought our math wiz a better computer, our sports star more socially acceptable branded clothes and Tiny Tim a new pair of crutches. Come on Congressman BleedingHeart, it's for the children - vote 'yes' on the Sacrificing Mom Doubled-Dependent-Deduction amendment.

But I don't expect you to finance, by proxy and by federal force, my special interests. And you should not expect me to finance yours.

In the present mish mash of thousands of pages of tax law, your 'helps' are my 'hurts'.

You claim that "This Protest is about being fair to the American people." But I hope you can understand my point that your entirely subjective definition of fairness is completely at odds with mine. You think the rich are 'filthy' and should be punished with higher rates. I think people who take entirely whole new skins out of the future revenue generation game by having abortions are 'filthy' and should be punished with a negative dependent deduction.

Who will get their way and be the winner of the tax code?

You. For now.
Me. When I have the votes.

Who is right? And who is wrong?

Both of us. On both counts. Subjectively speaking.

I don't wish for you to take personal offense in these words. I only ask that you consider the difference between unachievable (because undefinable) subjective fairness and true objective fairness on which blind American justice was originally based.

Objectivity IS fairness. Progressivity IS a corruption of it.

[-] 1 points by mrbill0626 (33) 1 year ago

The solution to all of this is simple: The FairTax www.fairtax.org. Once we establish the FairTax and abolish the IRS and the current tax system, all those nasty taxes you mention will go away., along with all of the evils they spawn. And this is not a Democrat or Republican issue, but an American issue, through and through.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Good Summary. I've said many of the same things more or less. Glad you have some numbers in there for me to learn.

Have you wondered why corruption goes on so long without any corrections ...other than lies, misinformation, propraganda, and non transparent congressional activities?

Was just thinking back to Neil Bush and the Silverado S&L Banking Scandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis

The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly dubbed the S&L crisis) was the failure of about 747 out of the 3,234 savings and loan associations in the United States. A savings and loan or "thrift" is a financial institution that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual members ..."Costing $88 Billion Dollars".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis#Silverado_Savings_and_Loan (Neil Bush was on the Board of Directors)

You got that RIGHT. NO Choice for Real Change. Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion.

Oh and Campaign Finanace Reform from Watergate to the 80s, to the 90s, and in 2002. Status Quo - No Real Change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States

Yearly earnings and Taxes described by David Cay Johnston can be deffered by executives, put into a Trust Fund, and Earn Interest for at least 20 Years. But for 80% of Americans we can't deffer any earning. We pay tax on the first dollar we earn. Pretty sure they can deffer declaring Bonus's also and put them into a Trust Fund.

So Mitt Romney's tax rate could be much lower than published. Because Earnings can be deffered and put into a Trust Fund. These are Undeclared Earnings, you can say.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Here is a little support from Rupert Murdock's Wall Street Journal:

One of the major reasons that Republicans call for lower tax rates on capital gains is the profits from industry are taxed twice; in fact – Paul Ryan and many other Republicans have called for a 0% tax rate on capital gains. But the reality is that nearly 70% of corporations actually pay no tax whatsoever because they are listed as S-corporations i.e. “small businesses”. In fact – many large corporations are legally registered as S-Corporations including Koch Industries – a private corporation with over 70,000 employees and run by the infamous billionaire Koch Brothers who collectively are worth more than Bill Gates.

You will regularly hear politicians like Mitt Romney talk about the importance of reducing taxes on S-corporations or “small businesses” as they use small business as a shield meanwhile protecting the very rich. Oligarchs are using this loophole to pay a 15% capital gains tax on profits that have not been taxed at the corporate level. In fact – Republicans will typically use the S-corporation as part of their stats for small business.

This isn’t even including the 26 mega-large corporations like AT&T, Boeing and Citigroup that paid more compensation to their CEO’s than they did in taxes to the U.S. Treasury HERE.

Read more: http://www.classwarfareexists.com/wsj-nearly-70-of-u-s-corporations-pay-no-taxes/#ixzz2BJbFwygl Follow us: classwarfareexists on Facebook

We really must have better definition of terms like, small business, job creators, hard working Americans, class warfare etc.

[-] 1 points by SPORTCARX (21) 1 year ago

don't forget to vote

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 2 years ago

And who do you espouse we vote for? It's one simple party - the Republicrat. There is no REAL difference between republican or democrat at the end of the day. They both don't work for the people.

Once we stop being divided upon silly party lines we will look across the aisle at our brother and notice we are all being screwed by the system.

The media and the politicians are co-opting the movements of the people and pitting them against each other. Don't buy into it. Don't buy into the politicizing of the movement.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

There may be no difference in principle, but there is certainly a difference in scale. A difference of 100% corrupt is significantly different than 20% corrupt. Recognizing that reality improves the quality of the strategies you can use to fix the system. I am sure you are sophisticated enough to deal with a little more detail.

[-] 1 points by BuddhaB (4) 2 years ago

Jmcdarcy,

Thanks for the reply. When I said:

"Maybe it's just me, but whining about the money grubbing rich and about misguided priorities after such a statement introduces a confusing element of self hate that might sully your otherwise relatively pure message of class envy"

It was just an overly wordy accusation of hypocrisy. Because the article was criticizing the rich right after placing mammon above God, Constitutional rights and life. But now that I re-read it, I can see I wasn't entirely clear in that regard.

And yes, of course, as a good gun-toting Christian conservative I certainly do recognize the sin in homosexual acts and the abomination of abortion. But objective fairness in taxation would have us all -sinner or saint, rich or poor, Cowboy or Packer - paying the same rate.

When it comes to representation before the law (tax or otherwise):

Objectivity and tolerance are birds of a feather. Subjectivity and tyranny are a difference in degree.

I expected harsher treatment here for my traditional American views. And for adherence to logic and principle on a subject often riddled with emotion and division. Thanks for proving me wrong.

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 2 years ago

What a minute, this whole diatribe - then at the end, you say "Obama is a big disappointment..."
What about Clinton and NAFTA? What about Carter? What about Obamacare?

My message to you is: GROW UP! Almost every politician we have is bought - conservative or liberal. When are you going to stop whining about those big, bad republicans and how they are the evil ones? "If only it weren't for those mean republicans, we progressives could tax the hell out of everyone!"

You are spouting divisive, unproductive rhetoric and alienating people that might be willing to support your point of view if you weren't so biased in your presentation.

[-] 0 points by SPORTCARX (21) 2 years ago

Did you say I am biased?

Lets see why I am pissed at the Republican Party

They held hostage the unemployed and denied extending UC benefits unless they could be guaranteed NO INCREASE for tax payers in the TOP 1% of income.

The Patriotic flag waving REPUBLICAN PARTY denies first responders financial assistance with medical issues directly related to their heroic service on 9-11. Many of these people did not have a job and/or insurance coverage due to their illness.

The bill was going to be funded entirely funded by reversing a TAX LOOP HOLE created under the Reagan administration that allows Pharmaceutical companies to locate on an offshore Island so they can avoid paying taxes on operations based in the USA.

If one of us tried this tactic we would be imprisoned on the ground of money laundering.

There is a long list of special breaks corporate America received courtesy of the REPUBLICAN party.

My blood pressure goes up every time I go thru the list. so please don't get me started. The medicine I take cost $108 fore a 30day supply. But if I was living in Canada I would be allowed to buy a generic brand for only $10.

WAKE UP AMERICA. the REPUBLICAN PARTY does not care about your well being.

Yes I know they lead you to believe they are on your side with all their distraction about 2nd amendment rights and funding government funded abortion clinics.

The misinformation serves only to distract you as the screw the 99% in this country.

I can not believe all those red necks making minimum wages vote republican. How many of those jobs have health care coverage.

I can't back this up with facts (thank you Mr Cain) but I am going to say it anyway because if you repeat the lie enough it becomes the truth.

Thank you FOX news, you are the best at making up talking points and then reporting them as news events on your network If you were only "Fair and Balanced" your audience would not be so misinformed.

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 2 years ago

The color of money is green. Corporations hedge their bets in both political party organizations. Their only moral responsibility is to the share holders of the corporation and are personally rewarded with generous benefits packages. It's a business model that does work. You don't have to give thought about shipping jobs oversees. It's just a business decision. In a corporate world you can't attach yourself to ideologies of structures of government. In all forms of government money is green. You work in all types of government structures and some of these governments are on the complete opposite spectrum of human rights that our government structure protects. It's not the republicans or democrats that people should not vote for. It's all incumbents that need to be sent packaging.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Uhh hedge fund managers pay 15% from the capital gains tax. What is left over still goes on to be taxed as income under the income tax. That is double taxation.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Nice try. Now explain carried interest, which most of them hide behind.

In 1987, the Inland Revenue and the British Venture Capital Association (BVCA[13]) entered into an agreement which provided that in most circumstances gains on carried interest were not taxed as income.

The Finance Act 2003 widened the circumstances in which investment gains were treated as employment-related and therefore taxed as income. In 2003 the Inland Revenue and the BVCA entered into a new agreement which had the effect that, notwithstanding the new legislation, most carried-interest gains continued to be taxed as capital gains and not as income.[14] Such capital gains were generally taxed at 10% as opposed to a 40% rate on income.

In 2007, the favourable tax rates on carried interest attracted political controversy.[15] It was said that cleaners paid tax at a higher rate than the private-equity executives whose offices they cleaned.[16] The outcome was that the capital-gains tax rules were reformed, increasing the rate on gains to 18%, but carried interest continued to be taxed as gains and not as income.[17]

It’s well-known that many corporations pay little or no income tax, and there are certain corporate structures called “pass-throughs” that avoid all tax as well. Private equity funds like Romney’s Bain Capital are, of course, organized as pass-throughs.

John Michel on May 20, 2011

"Congress seems to be waking up to the long-evolving scenario that perhaps as many as half of all U.S. businesses and companies that employ half of the private sector workers are not federal income-tax-paying entities. They are so-called “pass-through” entities, better known as partnerships, limited liability companies and S Corporations."

The loophole: Unlimited tax deductability for executive pay How it works: Federal laws impose no meaningful limit on the amount of executive compensation corporations may deduct from their taxable income as an expense. Annual cost to the treasury: $9.7 billion

The loophole: Unlimited deferred compensation How it works: CEOs may legally shield unlimited amounts of compensation from taxes through special deferred accounts set up by their employers. Cost to the treasury: $80.6 million

The loophole: Preferential treatment for carried interest How it works: Investment advisors such as Mitt Romney get paid in stock or equity shares (what's known as "carried interest") instead of a cash salary. This allows them to pay taxes on their income at the 15 percent capital gains rate, instead of the 35 percent rate that applies to regular income. Annual cost to the treasury: $2.1 billion

The loophole: Stock option accounting double standard How it works: Corporations don't take tax deductions for executive stock options (which allow execs to buy company stock at a preset price) until after the options are exercised. At that point, the options are often worth much more than at the time they were granted. The corporations may then deduct this difference in value from their taxes as "excess stock compensation." Annual cost to the treasury: $2.5 billion

Taken together, these four corporate tax subsidies cost the federal government $14.4 billion a year. Which equates to $46 for every American, or enough money to hire 211,732 elementary school teachers.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

In over my head, but I think I was invested in a FTE, Pass-through-Entity.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-through_entity>

A flow-through entity (FTE) is a legal entity where income "flows through" to investors or owners; that is, the income of the entity is treated as the income of the investors or owners. Flow-through entities are also known as pass-through entities or fiscally-transparent entities. Depending on the local tax regulations, this structure can avoid dividend tax and double taxation because only owners or investors are taxed on the revenue. Technically, for tax purposes, flow-through entities are considered "non-entities" because they are not taxed; rather, taxation "flows-through" to another tax return.

Common types of FTEs are general partnerships, limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships. In the United States, additional types of FTE include S corporations, income trusts and limited liability companies.

Good Post. I'm still sorting it all out. 25 years ago I learned something about Double Taxation, but never learned much. The Rules almost change Yearly anyway. Business Taxes sound interesting to me all the sudden....

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

It is complicated, to be sure, and deliberately so. They write the loopholes so that if a Congress person or a sharp eyed citizen should happen to see it before it becomes law it doesn't immediately set off alarm bells etc. Words like "steal" and "rip off" are eye catchers and are usually replaced by less emotionally charged terms. That is why lobbyists with specialized legal (but not necessarily lawful) vocabularies cost so much money.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yes, Book, The Fine Print, by David Cay Johnston is about the many ways we have the wool pulled over our eyes and ripped off. He talks about telephone service, internet, unitlities for starters. I read something about MLP (Master Limited Partnerships) which he says are set up so that the general manager or partner can disolve stock in a bancrupcy after big blow out of pipeline explosion. They buy pipelines, the stockholder buys in later at higher prices, but no money actually gets spent maintaining the pipelines and equipment. (from my memory)

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

David does good work. Clarifies things others try to obscure. Need more of him.

Does doing bad things deserve the protection from liability? Nope. Taking a risk and doing your best to make a company work, probably does. How to determine which is which isn't easy but it should be done. That's we way we get new solutions. But some of the apples are rotten. I have started some companies, some that succeeded, some that failed. Never sued by an investor.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Thanks. Yes, it is tough. Makes me hesitate sometimes and others I might support a bad apple's rhetoric. I've had a lot to say this past 6 months about simplifying business structures, business law, federal income taxes, removing loopholes, creating transparency, and making contracts simple enough for a 6th Grader to read and understand. I call it streamlining and simplifying.

You know if we do away with Shadow Banking, Shell Companies, institute GAAP Accounting Practices, Limit Corporations and Business Structures, and then Simplify the taxes ... we might have something ...as long as everyone knew there would be enforcement ... and the Civil Court Cases would be simplified and expedited.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

You are definitely on the right track. Check this out.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/now-that-we-have-the-government-that-we-deserve/

[-] 1 points by theOnlineGovernmentDotcom (97) 2 years ago

I disagree - gay marriage and abortion are the most important issues. As a person who reads the bible daily I can tell you GOP is the correct party, because if you read the bible it's all about HATE - hate thy neighbors, hate gays, go blow up brown people for their oil,,, you know, that type of thing. The ultra-rich are just testing out the tax cuts to make sure they are safe for the rest of us GOP-ers. That's what they told me on Fox. After they make sure they are safe they will extend them to the wanna-be-rich like me.

[-] 1 points by ThirdParty2012 (52) 2 years ago

It seems to me that both parties seem to think that these social justices/injustices are at the top of the agenda.. whether you are for or against. Keep fiddling while Rome burns...

[-] 1 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 2 years ago

Whatever you do, don't drift off the plantation.

[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 2 years ago

Same exact things can be said about democrats.

[-] 1 points by jonvonleaderhosen (50) 2 years ago

If you vote for a conservative, you are voting for job creation & reduced energy costs. If you vote for a liberal, you are voting for governmental bankruptcy, record unemployment, & ridiculously high inflation. The government is getting too big. Government is the problem. We need a smart, non-politician with fiscal conservative values to over-haul our system & make it sustainable. WE NEED TO VOTE FOR HERMAN CAIN IN 2012!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Please do that. Good luck living in the back woods or the bayou. Don't forget to take plenty of ammo to use while you are learn to make pointy rocks. The lard will provide.

[-] 1 points by ArrestAllCEOS (115) 2 years ago

This is true, I'm voting Obama and all democrats because they will save The People.

Obama 2012!!!! YES WE CAN!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by jmcdarcy (158) 2 years ago

I lived in Philly...it's totally true, you get taxed out the ass.

[-] 1 points by larry (2) 2 years ago

Funny, I just read in the New York Times that OBAMA received more Wall Street and bank money than ANY politician in history (yes, even more than Bush).

So, who are you all protesting again?

[-] 1 points by SPORTCARX (21) 2 years ago

Protesting everyone.

Obama received more money then Bush from the banks. Bush Received more money from the banks then Bill Clinton Bill Clinton received more money from banks then Bush Sr.

what is your point?

[-] 1 points by kristy750 (21) 2 years ago

Sorry, but the topic of this thread is not protesting everyone. It is protesting republicans. Your movement makes no sense. Are you against the republicans? The democrats? Everyone? Make up your minds. Your movement is backed by moveon.org, the DNC, white house, and unions. This isn't a movement for change, but a movement for the status quo.

[-] 1 points by SPORTCARX (21) 2 years ago

"This isn't a movement for change, but a movement for the status quo".

Do you not need change in order to change the status quo?

[-] 1 points by BuddhaB (4) 2 years ago

As the most right wing person you never met, let me take this opportunity to agree with you on two points.

It IS wrong to tax some citizens at different rates than other citizens.
it IS wrong to allow politicians to pick the winners and losers in society.

Wrong economically. Wrong Constitutionally. And, most importantly, wrong morally.

Your indignation in this regard is valid and shared.

The ONLY truly fair system of taxation is one that is objective. A flat rate. Zero exemptions, deductions or credits. Preferably on consumption so that all those wannabe hippies squatting on Wall Street can keep eating free food, keep sleeping in the park and then put their SEIU paychecks into savings tax-free.

Our nation and its founding framework were objectively defined. But Obama stirs you pawns of revolt promising to be the superhero of subjectivity. The Chosen One who has the strength to break away the concrete blindfold for centuries covering the eyes of Justice.

That blindfold represents objective fairness. Think about it. Bring it up at the drum circle.

Progressive rates are the very definition of a corruption to objective fairness. Once they are employed, then our friend 'fairness' becomes entirely subjective. A nebulous determination born of the whims of slim majorities past and present. All at the expense of freedom for a minority. It is the politics of division which the Democrats have employed for years and Obama, the Great Divider, has faithfully and fervently pursued.

This should be something that Left and Right could agree upon. Both of us claim to hate the IRS. Let's fire (most of) them and go with REAL objective fairness. Yes, I realize the Left will still want to redistribute wealth and to continue building dependency on government into our daily lives. And to the extent that they can muster a majority in Congress they will still be able to do so on the spending side. But the revenue side could be made entirely objective and thus immensely more simplified and less costly and burdensome to individuals and to businesses.

Another thing Left and Right should be able to agree on is that divisions of power are the best remedy for central corruption. There is a VERY good reason the Founders set us up in a federal system with extremely little power originally in the hands of the central government. Because the higher the level of government at which decisions are made, the less likely it is that the increasingly large number of people affected will all agree.

When you see vicious battles and reversals of laws with every change of Congress, then that is a sign that decisions should be pushed down to the state or lower levels. That is where the so-called 99% have a MUCH greater chance of personally affecting legislative outcomes. You would be hard pressed to get a meeting with your US Senator or even your Congressman. But your state rep would probably come wash your car if you gave him/her a call.

Anyway, before Captain Irony bursts onto the forum, you might consider fine tuning the argument in which you claim the wallet "matters most" as compared to human life, the Constitution and God. Maybe it's just me, but whining about the money grubbing rich and about misguided priorities after such a statement introduces a confusing element of self hate that might sully your otherwise relatively pure message of class envy.

And a parting tip: Generally we right wingers put all three of your casually dismissed pillars of American tradition far above monetary gain. If you are honestly attempting an appeal to our sensibilities, it's probably best not to wipe your feet on them first.

Your CHOICE FOR REAL CHANGE is right in front of you tonight. I'm not sure you get the Bloomberg channel there in the park, but if so you had on parade - at tonight's Republican debate - several ideas EXTREMELY different from those of the current regime. And from the last Republican administration.

Repenting Recommitting Republican

[-] 1 points by jmcdarcy (158) 2 years ago

You may be the only conservative who has ever spoken in a way that I actually felt compelled to listen. I found the comment about the drum circle pretty funny. Although your comedy is a little too dense for me here...I can't make sense of this comment." Maybe it's just me, but whining about the money grubbing rich and about misguided priorities after such a statement introduces a confusing element of self hate that might sully your otherwise relatively pure message of class envy." Anyway, it's good to here someone from the 'other' side actually making sense for once. Speaking about alternative opinions without the traditional gay bashing or arguments about abortion.

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

You apparently confuse social conservatism with economic conservatism. Plenty of people out there know a thing or two about economics and don't rail on gay people all the time. Never let the media tell you who the other side is. Find out for yourself, you might agree more than you think. I used to be a neoconservative, but I opened my eyes.

[-] 1 points by jmcdarcy (158) 2 years ago

Well I've just never seen it before in pure form...or very rarely. I've also never heard someone speak so well about it in such a logical way. Many times, people think they are speaking well but are running off of premises that are wild and unfounded...speaking out of self righteous indignation with passion and fervor but representing concepts which are pedestrian by comparison. In fact they often are not even concepts. Like Ron Paul just says shit for the most part. Such as "the government just messes everything up". It's really more of a broad philosophy which requires no nuanced explanation. It's totally unproductive. He says good things about the wars and the fed, but otherwise he just acts like every other Republican demagogue I've seen...playing off the generalized fear Republican constituents who base their fear on no concrete reality.

I have always been willing to listen to the "anti-federalist" conservative...many times less is more. I think we may need some of that to simplify our out of control health care and education. I'll even agree that we are overtaxed since the government acts with almost no prudence to spend the money we pay them. Who do you advocate for in the Republican party?

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

Not really anyone. I will flip Paul a vote because the media is not giving him a fair shake, and most of his opinions deserve consideration by the masses. Also, agree with him or not, he is the only candidate who has been 100% consistent with his principle for the last 30 years, never backing down. I'd almost vote for ANY politician that consistent, no matter what their views. I'd certainly have some respect for them no matter what their views. Paul is no Republican demagogue. I think, personally, that you want to disagree with him so you don't want to hear what he has to say. I listen to everybody, no matter who they are, and carefully consider what they are saying to see if it makes sense. I try to strip my mind of all preconceived notions and predetermined conclusions. I think you'd agree with Paul more than you think if you really thought about what he says.

[-] 1 points by jmcdarcy (158) 2 years ago

I gotta admit, I like what I hear.

[-] 1 points by jmcdarcy (158) 2 years ago

I gotta admit, I like what I hear.

[-] 1 points by jmcdarcy (158) 2 years ago

No, I definitely listened to an entire Ron Paul speech on C-Span while I was driving back from DC. Prior to that, I had considered voting for him. I like what he says about ending the wars and the fed and I like what he says about the prisons. And you're right...he has been consistent which is deserving of merit. I really didn't like what he was saying in that speech. I'll check him out again though.

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

Cool... everyone, like Paul, has bad days on occasion. Mitt Romney has had a bad life lol

[-] 2 points by jmcdarcy (158) 2 years ago

lol...I mean I'd at least rather have Mitt than Bachman...he at least knows how to govern. But he's the same ol shit different smell in many ways.

[-] 1 points by SPORTCARX (21) 2 years ago

I agree with some of your points..but I most disagree with a FLAT tax.

The highest tax people pay today are the flat taxes. Social security... State taxes... and city-local taxes.

The Filthy Rich welcome a flat tax and a consumption tax. They do not spend 100% of their income. The working poor do.

Eliminate the IRS? are you serious? Someone has to do collect the money on behalf of the citizens and to operate this government.

Do you want chaos?

No infrastructure?

Be serious.

This Protest is about being fair to the American people.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by SPORTCARX (21) 2 years ago

If you don't VOTE don't complain.

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

Plenty of businesses are satisfied with the Democrats, too. How do you think they won the last election? Corruption knows no party, the corrupt buy whoever is selling themselves.

[-] 1 points by jmcdarcy (158) 2 years ago

You've got to vote for someone, even if it's a write in. Not voting at all is not sending a message to anyone. Please don't give up. If you give up, then all is truly lost. Vote third party or fourth party. Look at this site...direct election of the president...possible hope for the future. americanselect.org

[-] 1 points by Occula (2) 2 years ago

Ron Paul is a whack-o. He wants to allow Iran to have Nukes! That's real smart.

[-] 1 points by quadrawack (280) 2 years ago

Because it is. It's called take of your own backyard, don't mess in other people's backyards. Plain and simple. Mess in someone else's backyard, naturally they're gonna be pissed at you. Don't get in their backyard, and we're all cool.

He's the only one with a sane foreign policy, and unlike all the rest, he actually understands the concept of BLOWBACK.

[-] 0 points by anonymouse (154) 2 years ago

America shouldn't interfere with problems outside of countries. They will only piss of others and cause strains on their own.

America isn't a big cop where he runs around global-trotting everywhere starting wars based on lies, brings nato, still a 11+ year war in iraq/Afghanistan/whatever.

Obama is a deceiving liar, what will change if we employ another retard? The country is stupid because the zionist bankers/corporations (zionists are jews who don't represent judaism and their teaching, that aren't religiously motivated, and is a political movement much like the Nazi Movement) run the main-stream media, which is a propaganda machine in it's own right. Cold-hard facts! Sides only divide people, and pit them against each other! This is crap! You want true jews? There is a video of Rabbis protesting against the Palestine Occupation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcjNJacDvPo&feature=related

Truth is, money is evil. It doesn't work. A much simpler system that cannot be labelled as 'Socialism' or whatever by ignorant medias would be great.

Right and Left is bullshit, nothing ever good came from it and nothing will! I don't see any easy way through this mess that has been on the country for years! There's always the hard way out, and that's the true way by the forefathers of america.

[-] 1 points by anonymouse (154) 2 years ago

you jackass, the heavy rich people you are whining about DONATED TO OBAMA TO GET HIM TO GIVE THEM THEIR MONEY BACK.

Go look it up on Opensecrets.org, Wall street and the banks gave more to Obama in 2008 than they EVERY GAVE TO ANY REPUBLICAN.

The housing crises was started by CLINTON when he insisted that OUR TAX $ (fannie and freddi) would guarantee loans that he DEMANDED the banks make to people WHO COULDN'T PAY THEM BACK.

Once the banks saw the loans were guaranteed, OF COURSE THEY WHEN HOG WILD.

And if you'd do some research instead of sucking off media matters and letting it dribble out as if you were being original, BUSH SENT HIS TREASURY SECTY TO CONGRESS IN 2005 and in 2006 and BEGGED THEM TO CUT BACK ON THE LOANS, but Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd ALL said "there's nothing wrong, LEAVE US ALONE."

Do we need to reform wall street and the tax system?

HELL YEAH. Do

we need to reform health care? HELL YEAH.

Do we want a bunch of scum sucking fake-far leftists with their lips on wall street DOING IT?

HELL NO.

Forget your OWS, dude, you're being DUPED.

Tea Party has the answer, and WE'RE FOR FREEDOM, not like some jackass cadre leader making you shout memorized chants in the middle of the night!

[-] 1 points by Occula (2) 2 years ago

Don't you see that you are being duped by obama and the left. They are creating this. They OWN this economy. It's all theirs. There are a select few corporations that were in bed with Obama. The rest of them create millions of jobs for people like you. It is sad to see most of you have been indoctrinated by the colleges or universities that you attended. "NO CHOICE FOR REAL CHANGE" you say. Since you say Obama didn't work, then why would you go back to the same party that created this mess. As one of our great founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, said; " Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Do you dare do the same thing? Vote for Herman Cain and you will see the change that you are asking for.

[-] 1 points by SPORTCARX (21) 2 years ago

Vote for Herman Cain and the only change you will see is a penny when you fork over a $10 bill.

[-] 1 points by chrischrischris (143) 2 years ago

You might want to check your facts or talk to an accountant. Warren Buffet pays way, way more than 15% of his dividends. Remember - that before the dividend is distributed it is taxed within the distributing entity at a very minimum, 35%. He then pays an additional 15% on that distribution on his end. A minimum 35% + 15% is a minimum of 50%. This really isn't difficult to understand.

"His secretary pays more than him" sit right down that's not even true. He pays WAY more than his secretary does in taxes. To be clear - he pays a greater percentage on his earnings, and he pays a greater dollar amount.

No self-employed person earning $40,000 pays 25% in taxes. That's simply not how the tax brackets are broken out. This isn't even up for debate.

No one pays 13% in social security anymore (and to others reading this, he is referring to BOTH the employee and employer side of this payroll tax). It was reduced last year, and is being reduced even further this year. And honestly, if you don't enjoy the luxury of doing your business in Philly, then get out! Do you know how expensive it is to maintain a city? And I'm pretty sure the wage tax percent in Philly is just under 4%. Meaning that, again, your incorrect.

More or less nothing that you wrote above is correct.

[-] 1 points by SPORTCARX (21) 2 years ago

I beg to differ.

I mentioned self employed.. self employed have to match their own social security tax. 7.65% plus 5.65 = 13.30%

The city of Philadelphia taxes sole proprietors at the rate of 7% .. the city wage tax is under 4%

Single People start paying 25% tax when their taxable income is 33,000 or more. check the tax tables.

I am quoting Warren Buffet .. Yes I realize the corporation pays tax on the earnings at 50% .. But Warren Buffet is not the sole shareholder and yes he only pays 15% on qualified dividends... look it up your self: http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/

Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.

So it appears that the tax system favors the super-rich over working stiffs.

And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:

I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.

[-] 1 points by chrischrischris (143) 2 years ago

Alright, if you want to include the Medicare portion in there - whatever. That accounts for 2.9%. And that's only up to your first $107k.

Sure - you got me on the sole proprietors tax.

Yes - TAXABLE income, not "earning $40,000". You have to factor in the deductions first. Really, someone making $40,000, with the very minimal deductions, will never hit the 25% tax bracket. Their taxable income at most will be around $30.7k. And at most they will pay about 9% in taxes on the federal side. The way you originally stated this was very misleading.

And being the sole shareholder has nothing to do with the percentage he first pays on the distribution before it is distributed. It's still at a minimum taxed around 35%. So his net tax rate is somewhere around 50%. That's the honest truth. He pays more than his secretary. This mini story around Buffet and his tax rate is a complete lie. The "bet" is a publicity stunt.

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

"The Democratic Party has no balls to stand up to them and is also influenced by lobbyist but at least they stand up for you." Sorry man, I stopped reading here. The parties stand for the same thing: Increasing the power of the oligarchy.

[-] 1 points by SPORTCARX (21) 2 years ago

ok so what is your solution?

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

There really are only two solutions....... They're both pretty extreme.

[-] 1 points by GeoffH (214) from Jacksonville, FL 2 years ago

Remove the ability for the 1% to influence the Government and return it to the Democratic Republic it is suppose to be.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

And..we don't have Capitalism today!

We have Corporatism!

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

Agreed 1000%

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

I am sorry to shatter your illusion but we have a ONE party system. The illusion of opposites is kept alive by the propaganda machine called the mainstream media. There is NO fundamental difference between the two parties. Not even in economics. They both practice the exact same format of economics that got us here in the first place. Its called Keynesian economics backed by fiat money!

[-] 1 points by SPORTCARX (21) 2 years ago

yes, I agree with you the system sucks .. but given a choice Republican or Democrat? I am voting Democrat. but we need Democrats that have "BALLS"

[-] 1 points by kristy750 (21) 2 years ago

The democrats started this class warfare. Why? Because someone has to be blamed for the mess our politicians got us into...the mess they have created by trying to employ social justice. Our politicians will never, ever admit that actions they have taken could have been wrong. Instead they double down and place the blame elsewhere and then tell us they will make laws to fix the problem they won't admit they created. Trying to make home ownership for everyone created this huge mess. Fannie and Freddie and the social justice democrats (and Bush too) are at the center of our crisis.

I suggest you read these 2 articles about the American Dream Commitment...a commitment by Fannie and Freddie of 2 trillion dollars to give to banks for lending to high risk customers.

From the first article:

"Our approach to our lenders is `CRA Your Way'," Gorelick said. "Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders' portfolios; we'll package them into securities; we'll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination; and we'll create customized CRA-targeted securities. This expanded approach has improved liquidity in the secondary market for CRA product, and has helped our lenders leverage even more CRA lending. Lenders now have the flexibility to use their own, customized loan products," Gorelick said.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_May_7/ai_74223918/?tag=content;col1

And from the 2nd article:

Joining with representatives from 11 leading mortgage lenders and Fannie Mae partners, Raines applauded the mortgage finance industry for its extraordinary efforts to reach and serve "emerging markets" of historically underserved families and communities, deliver Fannie Mae's $2 trillion in targeted capital, and extend the benefits of the nation's housing boom.

Lender partners participating in today's announcement include: Bank of America; Bank One Corporation; Charter One Bank; Countrywide Financial Corporation; Doral Financial Corporation; First Horizon Home Loan Corporation; Fleet Boston Bank; Huntington Mortgage Company; Irwin Mortgage; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; and Standard Mortgage Corporation.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2003_March_18/ai_98885990/?tag=content;col1

Translation...Our government pressured the banks to lower their lending standards, promised to buy up the crappy loans and package them as securities thus freeing the banks to hand out more crappy loans. The banks have paid back almost all the TARP money plus interest. Fannie and Freddy on the other hand have received about 160 billion and CBO estimates it could reach 1 trillion. Where is your anger at the politicians who created this entire mess?

[-] 1 points by pinardilla (49) from Rochester, MN 2 years ago

There's nothing Keynesian about today's fiscal policy, Keynesianism would have had us pay down our debt while we had prosperity. Keynes went out the window when Reagan was elected. Now the right runs up the debt deliberately and funnels it to their corporate friends through no-bid contracts, then uses that huge debt to bludgeon through austerity measures on key social programs.

Keynesianism is what we need to get back to.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

That is correct. Keynesian economics would have required enormous restrain but........it didn't and it was too easy to keep printing the money with the approval of both parties.

Both parties have contributed to the bailouts ( 2008 and 2009) Both parties have supported the wars, Both parties are supporting bills that erode our civil liberties.

One of the reasons the Federal Reserve was created was for Congress to spend money without the public knowing it was being taxed!

[-] 3 points by pinardilla (49) from Rochester, MN 2 years ago

When our fiscal policy lost restraint (primarily under Reagan) it ceased to be Keynesian. And while both parties have been at fault lately, the left will at least be the easier to rebuild; the Republicans have openly embraced the enemy for thirty years.

Fiat currency has more advantages than you think, too. You should read into MMT some, try http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/p/modern-money-primer.html . With the kind of clout America has, pinning our currency to gold is just an arbitrary restriction that limits our ability to make adjustments to maintain steady growth.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

I will...but we are not alone in this world. Russia introduced the goldstandard at the G20 and China is buying up goldmines right here in the U.S. History tells us....every empire ( which we are) goes up in smoke and has resorted to 'clipping coins' ( meaning diluting the money supply which causes inflation). The Fed has kept interest rates artificially low and one day soon....the genie cannot be held in the bottle any longer and we'll see massive inflation. Russia and China already abandoned the dollar in trade between themselves....

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

All true.

[-] 0 points by johnlocke76 (9) 2 years ago

senate republicans just voted for higher unemployment yesterday-these motherfuckers need to be dealt with

[-] 0 points by DirtyHippie (200) 2 years ago

If you vote republican you are voting against yourself . . .

unless your annual income is in the $1 million + range. Then by all means yes do vote for them. they represent you.

[-] 0 points by quadrawack (280) 2 years ago

Considering that the only one I've seen whose been right for the last 30 years is Ron Paul (I first saw him on a DVD truth and lies of 911 in 2005), I registered Republican for the very first time to vote him in the primaries. And come hell or highwater, I'm voting for him in the election. I'm a left leaning libertarian.

But to make a blanket statement against republicans is disingenuous. You'll only alienate a large base which has a lot of sympathizers for what y'all are fighting for.

[-] 0 points by Sasha (0) 2 years ago

So we're supposed to keep voting Democrat? The party that precipitated the financial crisis with its easy money policy? The party that tells us the good times can roll forever so long as we keep picking other peoples' pockets? The party that tells us we can't succeed without a huge government offering us a stipend to keep it in power? The party that reaped the lion's share of corporate donations in the last election cycle? The party that's in bed with big corporations and more than willing to proffer favored treatment to some in return for kickbacks at ballot time? (Research it ... most Republican donations are from small, single donors ... Dems get the biggest money from PACs and corporations). The party that wants to stick it to the small businessmen by fostering greed amongst a parasitic class of voters who pay no income tax, reap entitlements that dwarf the defense budget and are bankrupting the country? THAT Democrat party? No thanks, I think I'll keep 'voting against myself', because I like thinking FOR myself.

[-] 0 points by budfox (0) 2 years ago

The thing that bothers me most about these protests is the total disconnect from fiscal realty. If you were truly concerned about the Solvency of City State and Federal Governments then you would not March in Solidarity with Public Employee Unions. The Unions have been enjoying lavish benefits ridiculous pensions that are guaranteed to bankrupt NYC and many other cities and states. Where is the denouncement of Greed for these unions or the cries of corruption for the Democrats that sign these reckless contracts so they can stay in power with no means to pay for it. This practice is far more corrupt than anything that goes down in the business world.. Wall Street paid back almost all the Tarp funds I guarantee you won’t ever see a dime in give backs from the unions.

[-] 0 points by imrational (527) 2 years ago

You are missing the point. BOTH political parties are corrupt. We need to institute run-off voting or other means in order to break their stranglehold on our government.

In George Washington's farewell address, he cautioned the young nation to "AVOID THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM". We can see the results of not heeding his warning.

Also, please do not attack a large segment of the OWS membership. I am a registered Republican. I do not attack the registered Democrats here because we need EVERYBODY if we want to generate changes that will be embraced by the nation.

Push away a faction due to your intolerance and you doom the movement.

[-] 1 points by anonymouse (154) 2 years ago

"Push away a faction due to your intolerance and you doom the movement."

WHAT MOVEMENT? OWS is ASTRO-TURFED by moveon, Soros, the unions, the wall streeters taking 135 million dollar loans and letting you use their park, and the Obama WH!

Plus we're watching your late night "cadre" videos, and most of your non-druggies are being led around by hard corps marxists with their repeat and memorize "concensus" building.

Dude, complain about both parties, but know this. The Tea Party tolerates NO VIOLENCE OR RACISM; your OWS is FILLED WITH MARXISTS who want to destroy America.

Come over to the light.

[-] 0 points by imrational (527) 2 years ago

What we need is a movement that takes in everyone, regardless of their ideology. A movement pushing for ending corruption in our government. The Tea Party lost sight of this when they started pushing evangelical Christianity and a right wing platform.

The people staying in the occupations are likely to be students and the unemployed. Many people supporting the movement have jobs and/or don't live by the major cities. Yeah, the OWS is filled with Marxists... but we also have Libertarians and other conservatives like myself.

Get your Tea Party to endorse the movement (not the occupation) of ending corruption. Now is the time for your group to be vocal about that. If we ally on that message, hopefully we can achieve something real.

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

What......???? When did the tea party ever endorse evangelical Christianity? Seriously, slap up some links. And not a speaker, a tea party leader. the tea party is about ECONOMICS only. There are plenty of people with social agendas co-opting the movement, but no leaders.

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 2 years ago

I can only speak for my local Tea Party Group. I tried to get involved but their demand that God be part of their movement pushed me out.

However, seeing you asked. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/05/130353765/new-poll-tea-party-overwhelmingly-christian-and-socially-conservative

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

Thank you for the link. But the story didn't mention any tea party groups that had themselves adopted any other goals besides economic or fiscal ones. I do agree that the Tea Partiers are overwhelmingly social conservative, but that does not make it a social conservative movement. For example, if a majority of union members are socialist, that does not make labor unions socialist organizations. I do not blanket organizations or movements based on the types of people that join their causes. The OWS types of people are not the kind of company I usually keep, but I will continue to support the movement as long as the message continues to be one of anger at the amount of power corporations have over the government.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

What Republican candidate wants to repeal Medicare? I have watched every debate and this has never been mentioned to my knowledge.

As far as the Bush tax cuts go, they define rich at $250K for a family. Is that really rich? Can you lump those families in with those making $10M per year.

[-] 2 points by SPORTCARX (21) 2 years ago

congressman RYAN

all the candidates support his plan

have you heard anyone ask the question.

google : Paul Ryan medicare plan

[-] 1 points by anonymouse (154) 2 years ago

Sure read what CNN says about it (they aren't FOX).

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/07/in-defense-of-paul-ryans-medicare-plan/

It's very simple: FIX MEDICARE OR IT GOES BUST.

Ryna's trying to fix it. OBAMACARE KILLS IT.

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

I do not believe Ron Paul supports the Ryan plan.

[-] 1 points by SPORTCARX (21) 2 years ago

I will agree with you there I stand corrected. how many republicans in the senate agree?

how many in the house?

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

I read that wrong, sorry. I meant, that very few Republicans support that.

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

Lots.

[-] 1 points by SPORTCARX (21) 2 years ago

I agree 250K today is a decent wage .. but in no way do i think they should pay more then they do today. The problem is the cost of living has risen so much over the past 10yrs while wages have stayed stagnate.

In the 60's a person who made minimum wage could buy 14 gallons of gas on an hour worth of wages.

He could also take his family to a restaurant and buy them 4 meals / sandwiches

Today the equivalent hourly wage would have to be $32 dollars and hour or $64,000 a year salary. Two wage earners earning $64,000 = $128,000

$128,000 today equals $5,600 in the sixties. The middle class has turned into the working poor.

So $250,000 is the new middle class .. problem is, not to many families earn 250K.

[-] 1 points by GeoffH (214) from Jacksonville, FL 2 years ago

And many families make do with 18k a year or less.... Thanks to the 1%.

[-] 1 points by pinardilla (49) from Rochester, MN 2 years ago

$250k is pretty damn rich to a lot of us, but I'm all for millionaire tax brackets too!

edit: keep in mind, this is $250k a YEAR, not net worth. People making a quarter of a million in a single year of their lives. In terms of net worth, these people are likely all millionaires.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Yes, $250K a year. It really is not that much money these days. Comfortable? Yes. Rich? Not by a long shot.

[-] 0 points by pinardilla (49) from Rochester, MN 2 years ago

Comfortable enough that I really can't see a 36% marginal tax rate as unreasonable.

[-] 2 points by PragmaticEconomist (39) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Obviously you don't live in NYC. Try our cost of living.

[-] 1 points by pinardilla (49) from Rochester, MN 2 years ago

Cost of living would be something nice to factor into the current tax code, but no, I don't live in NYC, and $250k/yr will make you pretty comfortable indeed most anywhere else in the country. It doesn't make sense to base tax policy for the country around what NYC is like.

[-] 1 points by SPORTCARX (21) 2 years ago

I am a CPA .. this past tax season I had a client come in and ask me what am I doing wrong? I earn 70k a year and I can not meet my monthly bills. I told him its not your fault. The government has been lying about the inflation index. 2 % a year. This has helped to suppress wages. while the true cost of living is more like 10% a year. Health insurance up on ave 15% to 20% a year while raising the deductibles we have to pay. Insurance companies have no competition. Obama gave in to pressure and failed to deliver the message. The Right Wing did a great job at propaganda and misinformation.

When my Grand mothers Insurance ran out while she was in a nursing home the state came in and paid for her care. Do I want an insurance company telling me what to do? I laughed when I heard people stand up and say I do not want the government running my health insurance.