Politics

[Rhode Irish]

Simplify the tax code (lower rates and cut ALL deductions). I don't care if you make $5000 a year you should pay federal income tax still. The fact that a huge portion of this country does not pay federal income tax is unacceptable. (I'm fully for elimination of the income tax, I just don't see it ever happening)

A national sales tax that requires a 2/3rds vote in the House and Senate to raise it.

NO ESTATE (DEATH) TAX. We are one of the only countries that still has one. I don't care that its for estates worth over $1 million. 50% is ridiculous and it really doesn't take much to create an estate worth over $1 million.

Corporate gains tax down to 10%, encourages investing.

I disagree strongly with this on moral grounds. If you live below the poverty line, you are still paying sales and payroll taxes. I don't think you should be expected to take food out of your children's mouths in order to buy more fighter jets. I think those fortunate few making 100X as much as you can afford to pick up your slack on your modest tax bill. We don't have a flat tax because it is functionally regressive (and in the case of a capped flat tax, actually regressive) and morally contemptible.

 

[irish4ever]

This is a good point, but what we really should be concerned about is the quality of life of the poor. The "disparity" argument, at least in its simple form, is a little off-base.

- If a poorish guy is getting paid $20,000 a year to work in a factory, and his boss is making $100,000, the boss is making $80,000 more.

- If the company suddenly comes up with a great idea and tripples everyone's incomes, the poorish guy makes $60,000 and the boss now makes $300,000, the boss is now making $240,000 more.

So while the poorer guy can technically argue that the discrepency between their two incomes is growing, its also true that he is a lot better off. In other words, sometimes the discrepency argument can be very deceiving.

. Did it ever occur to you that in some cases that the Poorish Guy was an individual that growing up was a slacker growing up and was more interested in partying, having fun no focus or plans for the future, whereas the boss was one who worked hard, made good grades, paid their way thru college and focused on making good life for themselves? Yet we should fel sorry for the slacker based on their pizz azz decision in early life?

 

[Sherm Sticky]

First time in this thread, don't want to read it, don't want to get into intense arguments. But, Biden is going hard right now!

 

[gkautz10]

. Did it ever occur to you that in some cases that the Poorish Guy was an individual that growing up was a slacker growing up and was more interested in partying, having fun no focus or plans for the future, whereas the boss was one who worked hard, made good grades, paid their way thru college and focused on making good life for themselves? Yet we should fel sorry for the slacker based on their pizz azz decision in early life?

That is quite the assumption.

 

[Rhode Irish]

. Did it ever occur to you that in some cases that the Poorish Guy was an individual that growing up was a slacker growing up and was more interested in partying, having fun no focus or plans for the future, whereas the boss was one who worked hard, made good grades, paid their way thru college and focused on making good life for themselves? Yet we should fel sorry for the slacker based on their pizz azz decision in early life?

With all respect to Magogian, this is the absolute worst comment in this entire thread. Talk about having your head up your ***.

 

[gkautz10]

With all respect to Magogian, this is the absolute worst comment in this entire thread. Talk about having your head up your ***.

That should be the Republican slogan this year. His comment that is, not yours

 

[phgreek]

I disagree strongly with this on moral grounds. If you live below the poverty line, you are still paying sales and payroll taxes. I don't think you should be expected to take food out of your children's mouths in order to buy more fighter jets. I think those fortunate few making 100X as much as you can afford to pick up your slack on your modest tax bill. We don't have a flat tax because it is functionally regressive (and in the case of a capped flat tax, actually regressive) and morally contemptible.

not sure the intent of the OP here....someone making 5K...I assume thats on top of the assitance they already receive...no one living in this country legally nets 5k. While on philisophical basis, I'm not for government subsidies...its reality.

Lets look at numbers...welfare, housing subsidies, and food stamps usually run 1,300-1,800 / month...no one is getting rich on assistance for sure....good bad or indifferent these figures assume basic needs are dealt with...additional funds are provided for each child...again not meant for living in the lap of luxury, but the figures are adequate. Anything made above assistance should be subject to taxes just as everyone else...if in a flat tax paradigm, then the 5k they make gets taxed...don't get the rub here at all.

Not supportive of taxing our own assistance money...there are reasons to do that, but its waste. I'd be for not adjusting assistance levels until someone sustained an income over a period of time (3 years), but whatever they make gets taxed. I think this concept is one of belonging, ownership, pride, self-worth more than anything.

Yup I'm a conservative Ogre...what can I say...

 

[Domina Nostra]

. Did it ever occur to you that in some cases that the Poorish Guy was an individual that growing up was a slacker growing up and was more interested in partying, having fun no focus or plans for the future, whereas the boss was one who worked hard, made good grades, paid their way thru college and focused on making good life for themselves? Yet we should fel sorry for the slacker based on their pizz azz decision in early life?

Wow. I never said we should feel sorry for anyone. I said that the poorer guy should be thankful that he is making more money, rather than focusing on the difference in the two incomes.

 

[Domina Nostra]

The income disparity argument is a little different than what you're getting at here. In your example, the "poorish guy" is making 1/5 of his boss in both scenarios. But the total dollar difference isn't the crux of the argument. The argument is based on the apportionment of income. As the economy has expanded over the last 40 years, the growth has been concentrated among the top earners, not spread proportionally as in your example. (See chart below from the CBO.)

My point wasn't that the spread was proportional. That was just to simplify things. The point was that if workers are better off, why is it so important that executives are much better off?

If there is an argument that the workers are not better off, than that is something different. But if everyone is better off, the disparity stuff does not seem as compelling. What if the people that are making a ton of money are making it because a global information economy made that possible, not because they are fleecing workers? (For example, what if you could work less hard in a factory and end up making something that is 100x as valuable as what you were making before).

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

. Did it ever occur to you that in some cases that the Poorish Guy was an individual that growing up was a slacker growing up and was more interested in partying, having fun no focus or plans for the future, whereas the boss was one who worked hard, made good grades, paid their way thru college and focused on making good life for themselves? Yet we should fel sorry for the slacker based on their pizz azz decision in early life?

Wow!

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Our president brought his A game tonight. Great speech!

 

[Rhode Irish]

Yeoman work tonight. No lofty rhetoric. No poetry. Policy and substance.

 

[A Pac]

Can someone explain the whole joke on China and the Olympics. Kind of lost on that one.

 

[Rhode Irish]

My point wasn't that the spread was proportional. That was just to simplify things. The point was that if workers are better off, why is it so important that executives are much better off?

If there is an argument that the workers are not better off, than that is something different. But if everyone is better off, the disparity stuff does not seem as compelling. What if the people that are making a ton of money are making it because a global information economy made that possible, not because they are fleecing workers? (For example, what if you could work less hard in a factory and end up making something that is 100x as valuable as what you were making before).

If you look at how much debt the average person is carrying, I think it is a big deal. What if that split were cut in half over the last 40 years? Wouldn't middle class people have been better positioned to deal with the recent economic crisis? If we hadn't been so leveraged, would there have even been one?

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

If you look at how much debt the average person is carrying, I think it is a big deal. What if that split were cut in half over the last 40 years? Wouldn't middle class people have been better positioned to deal with the recent economic crisis? If we hadn't been so leveraged, would there have even been one?

Excellent point....

 

[phgreek]

With all respect to Magogian, this is the absolute worst comment in this entire thread. Talk about having your head up your ***.

Why...this happens. Not the entire basis for utilization of assisstance, but it gets to an underlying point...

Sometimes systems are abused....we, all of us, collectively have our heads up our asses because we set up these programs with no thought to fraud/abuse prevention. I just think if we gotta have safety nets they need to be for those who find themselves in a bad spot, not those who perpetually put themselves in a bad spot...pretty hard for a federal program to determine...hmmm so you get rampant abuse or layer upon layer of beaurocracy...ie waste...using the fed to do any of this beyond maybe funding it,if you must, is not very smart.

 

[A Pac]

Obama hasn't said "Romney" once. Reason behind this. I've only started to get into politics since becoming a history teacher.

 

[BobD]

Game, set. match.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Anyone else in love with Savannah Guthrie?

 

[Rhode Irish]

Just to restate:

Yeoman work tonight. No lofty rhetoric. No poetry. Policy and substance.

Job well done.

 

[phgreek]

Game, set. match.

...Nothing he said, nor Bill Clinton changed unemployment....good couple days for Dems...we'll see what happens

One thing is for sure...its gonna get ugly out there.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Saw this on Reddit. Found it thought-provoking. Sharing it here.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SC_wjQtfhZQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[IrishAlum1997]

Game, set. match.

Glad to see you've conceded.

 

[greyhammer90]

Glad to see you've conceded.

No he meant for....

wait a secon....

I think you....

but that would mean...

ooooooooooh.

 

[phgreek]

Saw this on Reddit. Found it thought-provoking. Sharing it here.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SC_wjQtfhZQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I agree with george on many things...I think he goes too far on the whole "Brown people" thing...since vietnam...I can see the consiracy theory/explanation of protecting oil interests(although thats somewhat simplistic too)...and those interests tend to be threatened where Brown people live...I don't think wars are designed to pick on them per se.

He is on the money when it comes to the danger in the consolidation of media and critical industry though. Foreign Ownership in the electric power industry is another doosy...national security issue to me.

 

[pkt77242]

My point wasn't that the spread was proportional. That was just to simplify things. The point was that if workers are better off, why is it so important that executives are much better off?

If there is an argument that the workers are not better off, than that is something different. But if everyone is better off, the disparity stuff does not seem as compelling. What if the people that are making a ton of money are making it because a global information economy made that possible, not because they are fleecing workers? (For example, what if you could work less hard in a factory and end up making something that is 100x as valuable as what you were making before).

The problem is that the average worker isn't making more money. How the middle class became the underclass - Feb. 16, 2011
Real wages have been stagnant for 20+ years. In 1988 the average tax payer (adjusted for inflation made $33,400 and in 2008 it was $33,000. So the average worker isn't making anymore but the CEO's wages and other top executives has exploded. That is the problem.

 

[4irishnation]

who was that aimed at????

Why, worried that it was meant for you?

 

[Rhode Irish]

Why, worried that it was meant for you?

Thank you for your valuable contribution.

 

[gkautz10]

A legitimate argument I had tonight with a Republican. He said none of us are going to receive social security because of Obama. Umm are you fing kidding me?? I didn't know President Obama aged the population just to screw us over. News to me. This is some of the stuff I can just not wrap my head around. what was President Obama supposed to do, kill off the aging population? Another argument I have against Republicans is that the number one reason a country is described as 3rd world is because of the disparity between the rich and the poor. I see a growing disparity between the 2. does anyone else see this also?

 

[phgreek]

Why, worried that it was meant for you?

No, I'd hoped it was... was worried it was aimed at a guy asking a question. That would not be cool.

I think the cartoon is funny...if thats the extent of your contribution to the political discussion...thats cool...more levity and humor, and less self-proclaimed 'sperts pawning opinion as fact.