Politics

[Ndaccountant]

As a democrat, I hope this is the position that the entire GOP takes following a decisive defeat in a crossroads election. It will just make their own irrelevance come more quickly than it would waiting for the inevitable that would slowly happen anyway as the electorate becomes more and more hispanic and black. If they continue to promote positions that alienate minorities and women and cling to the notion that they are right and everyone else is wrong, they will destroy their own credibility. I suspect that they will eventually move back toward the Center where the voters are. This will require them to abandon their selfrighteousness. They ignore the mandate the voters handed them at their own peril, and, in the short term, at the peril of the country as it stares over the fiscal cliff.

I think you are missing his point.

What is the midset of the general public today? Is it a mindest where they feel like a victom of the system if they are not living the life they want? Or, do they feed off the challenge and push forward in persuit of greater things? The difference between the two is that once camp feels they are owed something where as the other camp strives to achieve.

We have a social responsibility to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. However, there needs to be a line and that line is not clear today.

 

[DSully1995]

And by that time, it'll be too late.

Besides, man doesn't create global warming. So there is nothing we can do about the earth cycles anyway.

Nonsense. Yea the earth does change naturally, weve known that, but how do you FOR SURE know the changes since the modern era began isnt man made???

 

[irishpat183]

Nonsense. Yea the earth does change naturally, weve known that, but how do you FOR SURE know the changes since the modern era began isnt man made???

So we need more legislation because we "think" that man is changing the climate?


Nice. Bet that turns out great.

 

[tadman95]

Also, I'm praying for Mark Warner in 2016. Socially liberal guy who really understands business and Government's role in facilitating the economy.

There are no words to tell you how much I agree with you and support Mark Warner. He is a business man, very successful business man who dug Virginia out of an absolute hole by doing what needed to be done.

I'll start it now Warner/tadman 2016!

 

[irish1958]

Some thoughts on direct election vrs electoral college in the presidential elections:
I may be wrong, but it appears to me that those who favor direct election are mainly the GOP and libertarians. They should be careful for what they wish. Do they really want to take away the excessive bias in favor of the red states? And increase the power of the large population centers?
Direct election would have put Gore in the White House and we would have missed the enjoyment of the Iraq war, the prolonged mess in Afganistan, the Bush recession, the stimulus package, tha auto bailout and even the current fungal meningitis epidemic.
How dull.

 

[irishpat183]

I think you are missing his point.

What is the midset of the general public today? Is it a mindest where they feel like a victom of the system if they are not living the life they want? Or, do they feed off the challenge and push forward in persuit of greater things? The difference between the two is that once camp feels they are owed something where as the other camp strives to achieve.

We have a social responsibility to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. However, there needs to be a line and that line is not clear today.

I need you to go back and rewrite all my posts with this tact. Thank you.

 

[irishpat183]

There are no words to tell you how much I agree with you and support Mark Warner. He is a business man, very successful busy man who dug Virginia out of an absolute hole by doing what needed to be done.

I'll start it now Warner/tadman 2016!

Ryan dug Wisconsin outta a huge hole by doing what needed to be done.....

Sadly, IMO, economics aren't the first piority on the American publics mind.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Ryan dug Wisconsin outta a huge hole by doing what needed to be done.....

Sadly, IMO, economics aren't the first piority on the American publics mind.

This is definitely true.. #actionsspeaklouderthanwords

But as a congressman in Wisconsin, Ryan lobbied for tens of millions of dollars on behalf of his constituents for the kinds of largess he's now campaigning against, according to an Associated Press review of 8,900 pages of correspondence between Ryan's office and more than 70 executive branch agencies.

For 12 years in the House, Ryan wrote to federal agencies supporting expansion of food stamps in his Wisconsin district. He supported city officials and everyday constituents who sought stimulus grants, federally guaranteed business loans, grants to invest in green technology and money under the health care law he opposes.

On the campaign trail, Ryan has called those kinds of handouts big-government overreaching.

Read more: Ryan lobbied for federal money as he championed cuts | TribLIVE
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

 

[RDU Irish]

I think you can find some middle ground on some of these. I would like to see the retirement age for social security raised to 68 and early retirement to 65 (with maybe an exemption for people who work in manual labor fields to still get early retirement at 62). I could possibly be talked into raising to 70 but I would want some really good concession.

I would like to see corporate rates cut to 28% and get rid of most of the deductuions (again I could be talked into 25% if you can show that it would revenue neutral and not Romney type math on revenue neutral)

Agreed on cutting military spending. It needs to happen but it needs to be done smartly.

I completely disagree on the energy part.

I am on the record of phasing in higher taxes on a couple of income brackets.

On people making over 1 million dollars I would raise their taxes by 6% but stagger it over 3 years raising it 2% each year

people making over 500K would see a 4 percent increase staggered over 3 years
people making over 250K would see a 2% increase staggered with no change in year 1 and a 1% increase each of the next 2
and people making over 100k would see a 1% increase in the third year (nothing before that).

Thank you for illustrating how these topics are entirely feasible grounds for making progress. We have been at each other pretty good in this thread and we are able to concisely get to real solutions.

On taxes, I won't argue the lack of effectiveness of your stance rather the lack of feasibility. They have 16 days in session to take action. Extending existing legislation is feasible, re-engineering a deal is not. 2010 extended Bush Tax cuts, it is the easy way out to do that for a year or two (depending on mid term strategies). Republicans will hold he $200B/yr middle income tax cuts hostage to get the $50B/year HNW cuts extended with them, plus the logistics of excluding one or the other is just not practical. This is 50% of the "fiscal cliff".


Fiscal cliff = $536 billion = 3.5% drag on 2013 GDP
$205B Middle income Bush cuts expire
$50B High income earners Bush cuts
$38 billion AMT Patch (almost guaranteed to pass quickly)
$112 billion payroll tax cut
$21 billion 3.8% Obamacare tax on capital gains and dividends for HNW
$55 billion defense sequester
$55 billion domestic spending sequester


80% of this is tax increases, 20% spending cuts (not quite the 10/1 debated by Republicans)

Spending cuts will stand, Obamacare tax will stand.

AMT patch will pass
Bush tax cuts en-mass is easiest thing to pass quickly
Payroll cut is hard to get by Republicans and I don't see it standing alone as it really needs to given the short timeline.

 

[pkt77242]

I think you are missing his point.

What is the midset of the general public today? Is it a mindest where they feel like a victom of the system if they are not living the life they want? Or, do they feed off the challenge and push forward in persuit of greater things? The difference between the two is that once camp feels they are owed something where as the other camp strives to achieve.

We have a social responsibility to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. However, there needs to be a line and that line is not clear today.

I think the problem with our society is selfishness and it manifests itself both amongst some poor people and some rich people.

 

[DSully1995]

So we need more legislation because we "think" that man is changing the climate?


Nice. Bet that turns out great.

no im saying to look at the data and of what ive seen, you cant say we have no role, because we almost certainly do have a role.

 

[Ndaccountant]

before the scheduled increase so this would take the place of the 2013 increase. For family income, sorry that post was unclear about that, though I could be talked into it being by individual income but then I want the cap lifted off of social security income tax.

While $100k sounds like a ton of money, the prudent family (assume 2 working parents with average salary, 2 kids) would be saving for retirement, saving for college, home mortgage, cars, etc. The $100k can go a long way, but I would be strongly against taxing these people more.

The problem I have here though, is not everyone saves and plans financially so they could afford $1,000+ more a year. But, IMO, this would be better served in a retirement account or college savings plan.

 

[irishpat183]

While $100k sounds like a ton of money, the prudent family (assume 2 working parents with average salary, 2 kids) would be saving for retirement, saving for college, home mortgage, cars, etc. The $100k can go a long way, but I would be strongly against taxing these people more.

The problem I have here though, is not everyone saves and plans financially so they could afford $1,000+ more a year. But, IMO, this would be better served in a retirement account or college savings plan.

Exactly. 100k is not a lot of money these days. Especially when you start factoring in cost of living increases.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I think the problem with our society is selfishness and it manifests itself both amongst some poor people and some rich people.

I agree and here is the problem. There are more poor than rich. In a democracy, their votes count the same. So, the political class that offers more and more to the poor, they retain votes and power. This was the foundation for Karl Marx stating that Democracy was the road to socialism.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think you are missing his point.

What is the midset of the general public today? Is it a mindest where they feel like a victom of the system if they are not living the life they want? Or, do they feed off the challenge and push forward in persuit of greater things? The difference between the two is that once camp feels they are owed something where as the other camp strives to achieve.

We have a social responsibility to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. However, there needs to be a line and that line is not clear today.

This is the attitude that just cost the GOP the election. It is the attitude that will make the party irrelevant if they don't let it go. Obstructing progress did not serve them well. Perhaps they should set this asside and strive to greater things. I think it comes down to the notion that they feel that they are better than others. No matter how much they believe it, however, every voter has an equal share of say in an election. Voters just demonstrated a rejection of the GOP. I fully agree that there needs to be a line where personal responsibility has to take hold. I've said it multiple times in this thread. I don't think we are as far apart on that topic as you might think. That said, from a purely political standpoint, the GOP will not win elections in the future unless they get off their highhorse. If they don't win elections, they are just loud voices in the background and can't affect any changes they hold most important. The government isn't some thing that exists outside of the electorate. Voters, at the most basic level, are the government, and they have spoken.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think the problem with our society is selfishness and it manifests itself both amongst some poor people and some rich people.

This is a great point. It is a concise illustration of where the middle ground could be moving foward. Have to spread reps around before I can send anymore your way.

 

[Ndaccountant]

This is the attitude that just cost the GOP the election. It is the attitude that will make the party irrelevant if they don't let it go. Obstructing progress did not serve them well. Perhaps they should set this asside and strive to greater things. I think it comes down to the notion that they feel that they are better than others. No matter how much they believe it, however, every voter has an equal share of say in an election. Voters just demonstrated a rejection of the GOP. I fully agree that there needs to be a line where personal responsibility has to take hold. I've said it multiple times in this thread. I don't think we are as far apart on that topic as you might think. That said, from a purely political standpoint, the GOP will not win elections in the future unless they get off their highhorse. If they don't win elections, they are just loud voices in the background and can't affect any changes they hold most important. The government isn't some thing that exists outside of the electorate. Voters, at the most basic level, are the government, and they have spoken.

My comment wasn't geared toward political parties. I see it every day in the workforce. There is a clear difference between managing someone who expects a promotion versus someone that strives and works for it. This comment goes well past political affiliation. The USA is being plauged by those who expect to be given everything and it will lead to even greater resentment in this country.

 

[pkt77242]

While $100k sounds like a ton of money, the prudent family (assume 2 working parents with average salary, 2 kids) would be saving for retirement, saving for college, home mortgage, cars, etc. The $100k can go a long way, but I would be strongly against taxing these people more.

The problem I have here though, is not everyone saves and plans financially so they could afford $1,000+ more a year. But, IMO, this would be better served in a retirement account or college savings plan.

Ok then start it at 150K. I am flexible on this issue. I just think that we need to raise more revenue, the details can be negotiated.

 

[IrishLax]

Here's once policy thing I don't understand... why increase the capital gains tax? Is it simply to mask the cost from most people (because the majority of people pay little to no capital gains tax and therefor won't feel the effect)?

I mean, I can't think of a bigger way to stunt job growth than to increase capital gains tax. It's common sense... in a global economy, you're going to invest capital (i.e. create jobs) wherever it's most profitable... and the equation becomes less favorable for America the higher capital gains tax is. Why not leave capital gains tax where it is and increase income tax? Because you can't choose to avoid income tax... whereas a bank or investor can easily choose to invest their capital somewhere besides the United States... and frankly, if you assume there will be less investments then any increase is almost counter productive because there is less actual capital gains being taxed.......

Maybe I'm over-thinking this but it just seems like the worst possible way to address a deficit + down economy.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Here's once policy thing I don't understand... why increase the capital gains tax? Is it simply to mask the cost from most people (because the majority of people pay little to no capital gains tax and therefor won't feel the effect)?

I mean, I can't think of a bigger way to stunt job growth than to increase capital gains tax. It's common sense... in a global economy, you're going to invest capital (i.e. create jobs) wherever it's most profitable... and the equation becomes less favorable for America the higher capital gains tax is. Why not leave capital gains tax where it is and increase income tax? Because you can't choose to avoid income tax... whereas a bank or investor can easily choose to invest their capital somewhere besides the United States... and frankly, if you assume there will be less investments then any increase is almost counter productive because there is less actual capital gains being taxed.......

Maybe I'm over-thinking this but it just seems like the worst possible way to address a deficit + down economy.

Public perception.

The general public thinks that someone earning capital gains via investments is wealthy and should be paying more. They often list names like Romeny, Warren B, etc as guys who do not pay their fair share. The one thing they do have right is that hedge funds should pay higher rates on LT capital gains. However, instead of recalssifying hedge fund income, they simply tax everyone more.

To be honest though, I have less of a problem with capital gains taxes rising then what I do with dividend taxes and estate taxes. The estate tax needs to have a higher cap. It is purely a confiscation of wealth.

 

[GoIrish41]

My comment wasn't geared toward political parties. I see it every day in the workforce. There is a clear difference between managing someone who expects a promotion versus someone that strives and works for it. This comment goes well past political affiliation. The USA is being plauged by those who expect to be given everything and it will lead to even greater resentment in this country.

I think we should all take care not to make sweeping generalizations based on anecdotal information. I've run into some of the same types of issues on the job, and certainly, I agree that there is a difference between managing someone who expects a promotion versus someone that strives and works for it. I think that we might disagree that you can apply that model across the expanse of the country.

As to political affliliation, I am just suggesting that the GOP are on dangerous footing if they continue to alienate voters. They won't have the ability to affect change to the issues like the one you mentioned above if they are unelectable. Seems to me they are going to have to find another way to look at the world, or at least how they talk about it, or they will continue to alientate voters. Being shut out of the system will make the resentment you described above even worse, in my view.

 

[irishpat183]

My comment wasn't geared toward political parties. I see it every day in the workforce. There is a clear difference between managing someone who expects a promotion versus someone that strives and works for it. This comment goes well past political affiliation. The USA is being plauged by those who expect to be given everything and it will lead to even greater resentment in this country.

Exactly!!!!! It's not a poltical thing.

Our country has seen an increase in the dependency class on ridiculous levels.

It has to stop somewhere.

 

[pkt77242]

I agree and here is the problem. There are more poor than rich. In a democracy, their votes count the same. So, the political class that offers more and more to the poor, they retain votes and power. This was the foundation for Karl Marx stating that Democracy was the road to socialism.

You seem to be arguing that poor people vote democrat as they offer more to the poor. The problem with that is that the poorest states actually vote Republican (Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, etc) and the states with the most wealth generally vote Democrat. If your point was valid the South would be a Democrat stronghold.

 

[irishpat183]

I think we should all take care not to make sweeping generalizations based on anecdotal information. I've run into some of the same types of issues on the job, and certainly, I agree that there is a difference between managing someone who expects a promotion versus someone that strives and works for it. I think that we might disagree that you can apply that model across the expanse of the country.

As to political affliliation, I am just suggesting that the GOP are on dangerous footing if they continue to alienate voters. They won't have the ability to affect change to the issues like the one you mentioned above if they are unelectable. Seems to me they are going to have to find another way to look at the world, or at least how they talk about it, or they will continue to alientate voters. Being shut out of the system will make the resentment you described above even worse, in my view.

If we keep going this direction...it won't matter. Again, the dependency class isn't going to vote out the guy who gives them the free stuff.

They don't care about who's pocket it comes out of.

This guy says that you have what I don't and I deserve a cut of it. I'm voting for him.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

~1.2 million votes for Gary Johnson! Woo hoo!

Wish there was a more effective way to say "F*ck you" to the corporatist, war-mongering purple party.

 

[GoIrish41]

If we keep going this direction...it won't matter. Again, the dependency class isn't going to vote out the guy who gives them the free stuff.

They don't care about who's pocket it comes out of.

This guy says that you have what I don't and I deserve a cut of it. I'm voting for him.

Demonizing the electorate is what cost the GOP the election. As a Democrat I'd be foolish to even try to talk you down from that position because it will lead to the growth of my party and the policies I care most about.

However, as an American, I feel this type of thinking will just lead to more gridlock and obstruction in government. That is not good for this country.

 

[Ndaccountant]

~1.2 million votes for Gary Johnson! Woo hoo!

Wish there was a more effective way to say "F*ck you" to the corporatist, war-mongering purple party.

I was one of them. However, here was Gary's response on corporations:

Q: Why are you running for president?
A: I'm the only candidate that is talking about a balanced budget in the year 2013 and eliminating a corporate income tax as the real way to create jobs.

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

~1.2 million votes for Gary Johnson! Woo hoo!

Wish there was a more effective way to say "F*ck you" to the corporatist, war-mongering purple party.

I am a registered Libertarian and I voted for Gary. I get so much crap by people telling me I am throwing my vote away and things like that. A third party needs to be in the debates and the segment of the population that is voting for third parties is growing each year. My hope is that in my lifetime I get to see a shift away from the "two party" system.

 

[irishpat183]

I voted Gary Johnson as well.

5% needed to get public funding. Still along way to go.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I was one of them. However, here was Gary's response on corporations:

Q: Why are you running for president?
A: I'm the only candidate that is talking about a balanced budget in the year 2013 and eliminating a corporate income tax as the real way to create jobs.

And you think eliminating corporate taxes is a problem? The double taxation that occurs for certain types of entities (namely C-Corps) is inefficient and creates some perverse incentives.

It all flows onto someone's 1040 at some point, so what's the difference?