Is it okay if a poor man robs a rich man? How is this any different than government taxing the rich?
A poor person is not an institution founded on serving the people of a country. In such terms, the government has to take a little from everybody in order to function.
In terms of money, or percent, it sounds unfair to say that it is a good idea to tax the rich -- seeing as you say, we are all entitled to our property.
This sounds extremely unfair, though, when you look at the burden different families pay in order to meet such demands. It isn't too hard to see that heightening taxes on some wealthy families won't do anything to slow down their consumerism, buying habits, or income. They will just save a bit less. In contrast, a middle class or poor family will see taxes as a burden instead of just an unfair contract. They will actually see possible financial dreams/hopes going down the tubes as they pay more taxes. By leaving more taxes on a larger number of poor people, you are putting the burden on a large portion of the country and economy, whilst leaving wealthier people unburdened, and the government not as well able to function/give services.
So I would say, in terms of fairness, it is clear that rich people do not feel the same burden when it comes to financially giving up some income for their country. That sounds a little unfair.
It is not his fault though. The republicans are being idiots and not agreeing with him. If by tuesday the republicans don't agree to any deal, the US might have to start defaulting in its payments.
I really kept thinking the debt payment issue wouldn't crack down on us -- but when I heard some of the new freshman republicans speak, they were simply repeating 'If there's any rise in tax, we'd rather go to default'. All I could think is that our country is being run by idiots. Our nation is founded on compromises throughout its legislative history and even if you're a person that hates even the idea of a tax, you still shouldn't be a stubborn fool about it.
Our nation is founded on compromises throughout its legislative history and even if you're a person that hates even the idea of a tax, you still shouldn't be a stubborn fool about it.
That is true, taxes are what run countries. For them to say that they won't accept new taxes is ridiculous. Then again, when you have people like Sarah Palin saying that, you don't have to wonder why...
Our nation is founded on compromises throughout its legislative history and even if you're a person that hates even the idea of a tax, you still shouldn't be a stubborn fool about it.
Let me get this straight... someone who hates the idea of taxes should not hate the idea of taxes?
If it's stubborn for someone who is anti-tax to not support tax hikes, then wouldn't it be stubborn for people who support tax hikes to not even consider lowering/abolishing taxes?
If republicans do decide to raise taxes, what do you propose will happen next? Do you believe the government will pay off the debts created by government programs? No, the government will continue to spend more and more money. Why raise taxes so the government can continue spending again when you can simply stop big government spending all together?
I really kept thinking the debt payment issue wouldn't crack down on us -- but when I heard some of the new freshman republicans speak, they were simply repeating 'If there's any rise in tax, we'd rather go to default'. All I could think is that our country is being run by idiots. Our nation is founded on compromises throughout its legislative history and even if you're a person that hates even the idea of a tax, you still shouldn't be a stubborn fool about it.
Hmm, Let's see. Wasn't our country founded to get away from all the taxes? The way this country is going is not good for anyone. And does it seem right to you for the government to take from the rich, and give it all to the poor, or spend it on worthless crap? The stimulus bill, what was in that? Just a bunch of bologna, they paid a guy over 5 million dollars to see how fast ketchup pours out of a bottle.
Also, when the government raises taxes on the rich, and spends it on whatever they are going to spend it on, they usually end up spending more than what their tax income is. So with that said, they want to raise the Debt Ceiling again, so we don't go into debt. But, we are already in debt. Hence the name Debt Ceiling.
The Health Care bill. What is it all about, making it so every person has to have health care. Most of which who don't have it, can't pay for it. That's the whole reason they don't have it duh. So what does the government do. Pass bills and raise taxes to just give stuff to those lower class people. They don't have health care because maybe they are on SSI. Some of which are perfectly fine and don't get a job and live off the government. NO! Big government spending needs to stop. Look at Europe, a great example! They spent and spent and spent, what happened? The little man, and small businesses died out, so the government was paying for all the businesses because the private company were bought out, or stopped. Now the government has no more money. They raised taxes, but the people didn't have any money either none of them had jobs. And we all know that the government wont tax there own employees or unions.
If republicans do decide to raise taxes, what do you propose will happen next? Do you believe the government will pay off the debts created by government programs?
No, This is where you are wrong. This is where the compromise happens. Republicans should be open to the idea of a tax hike if the legislative addition has other things within it that THEY support. Ex: Lowering spending in the future, cut some entitlements, lower taxes in the future, etc. etc. etc. That is how a compromise works. But for a democrat to say 'Okay 2% Taxes and we'll do whatever you like' and for every republican to vote 'no' is ridiculous and is causing a stupid problem.
Look at Europe, a great example!
I don't think so, Europe is kicking our *****.
Anyways, big government spending is a bad thing and it needs to stop. Yet we have people that want to enjoy the benefits and entitlements that the government can give you and we have people that don't want taxes. The two do not mesh, obviously. For the past 30 years this nation has been bent on supplyside economics and since then the only real income rise in the entire nation has been on the rich side. I'm not saying we should tax ourselves into oblivion because we are the government's puppets, but to push our debt to the brink just to support the idea of having taxes at 1950's rates for the rest of history doesn't sound too smart, either.
Lowering spending in the future, cut some entitlements, lower taxes in the future, etc. etc. etc. That is how a compromise works.
We tried this already. After every tax hike, there are promises to lower taxes and government spending. The "temporary fixes" of today become permanent in the future.
But for a democrat to say 'Okay 2% Taxes and we'll do whatever you like' and for every republican to vote 'no' is ridiculous and is causing a stupid problem.
2% is quite a bit, especially when you add it to the next 2%, and the 2% after that.
Want a compromise? How about the democrats admit that they spent too much, and they decide not to raise taxes and we stop wasting so much money on useless government programs? How I see it, democrats need to prove they are for less government spending before they raise taxes.
But for a democrat to say 'Okay 2% Taxes and we'll do whatever you like' and for every republican to vote 'no' is ridiculous and is causing a stupid problem.
It's never just 2%. It's usually much more complex. Like a 7% tax increase on household annual incomes greater than $250K (so it's about 30% of their income going to taxes), a 5% increase for those making more than $100K (so it's up to about 20% for them), a 3% increase for those making more than 50K (so it's about 15% for them), and a 2% increase on those making minimum wage (so it's about 10% for them). Nobody likes their taxes to increase. People protest and get mad. That's not good for a representative's public image.
Democracy is failing, however unfortunate, we must carry on and strive forward after it's collapse. Autocracy would have been by far the most stable government system unless, of course, the autocrat is a stuck-up pig who worships himself. Is there any who oppose my statement? Please reply if you do.
Democracy is failing, however unfortunate, we must carry on and strive forward after it's collapse. Autocracy would have been by far the most stable government system unless, of course, the autocrat is a stuck-up pig who worships himself. Is there any who oppose my statement? Please reply if you do.
The problem here is that many people who believe in autocracy believe the problem with democracy is lack of action. Action isn't necessarily a good thing nor a bad thing. It depends on the type of action and one's political beliefs.
Politics are not an easy thing to grasp or to control. You have to think that Obama is receiving intelligence from all around the world because America feels the need to control the entire world, to be it's peace keeper. I don't think we have that right unless a country asks for help, but I cannot change such things. Additionally, politicians make promises to get into office because then they can do what they want. Congress can be vetoed, and such.
So, I go back and forth on my opinions of Obama, but by large they are negative like any politician.
It depends on the type of action and one's political beliefs.
I suppose believing you should just tear down the current system, and restart is a bad idea in practice, if not so much in principle.
What concerns me about the US defaulting on their loans is how it will affect the global economy, especially the Canadian. Right now Canada is sitting pretty stable. We're doing fairly well and our strong dollar shows it, but if our neighbours to the south don't get their act together, we're going to be screwed. The US and Canada are tied extremely close for trade, and other economic matters.
I haven't been following this thread, but I personally think Obama is a lazy president. Go on and hate me Obama fans, I don't really care, because I'm (probably) making a one time post.
