The GOP's last chance

#76
#76
Question: If it were 1942, and the Federal Government announced that it would be drastically increasing taxes to pay for the war effort against Japan, whom had just attacked the US at Pearl, would you support the tax increase?
 
#77
#77
JayVols said:
Pipe dream. Don't get me wrong, I loathe our current welfare system as well, but what would the ramifications be to you if you only paid for what you used? You really think your taxes would be lower if you were able to pay as you go without some degree of pooled resources?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

it may be a pipe dream, but it's a hell of a lot different than today where the rich pay for the rest of society. we can't have a happy medium?
 
#78
#78
therealUT said:
Question: If it were 1942, and the Federal Government announced that it would be drastically increasing taxes to pay for the war effort against Japan, whom had just attacked the US at Pearl, would you support the tax increase?
Click to expand...

Yes, if taxes were increased on everyone and it went directly to war effort.

To finish your analogy, taxes should not be raised now when done only on the rich and the taxes will not be used against the war effort (i.e., paying down the debt and cutting runaway spending). It would be like raising taxes and giving the increased revenue to Japan (i.e., more spending).
 
#79
#79
droski said:
it may be a pipe dream, but it's a hell of a lot different than today where the rich pay for the rest of society. we can't have a happy medium?
Click to expand...

At this juncture, a "happy medium" is pure fantasy. The Bush Tax Cuts need to expire; every worker needs to pay income taxes; the lower bracket percentages need to increase; and, the tax credits (also known as "social incentives") need to disappear.
 
#80
#80
droski said:
it may be a pipe dream, but it's a hell of a lot different than today where the rich pay for the rest of society. we can't have a happy medium?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm advocating. CUTS to entitlements (poor) ELIMINATION OF BUSH TAX CUTS (wealthy and middle class). Is that not everyone sacrificing?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#81
#81
therealUT said:
Question: If it were 1942, and the Federal Government announced that it would be drastically increasing taxes to pay for the war effort against Japan, whom had just attacked the US at Pearl, would you support the tax increase?
Click to expand...

money is fungable. your question assumes a simplicity that does not exist.
 
#82
#82
vols4sure said:
Yes, if taxes were increased on everyone and it went directly to war effort.

To finish your analogy, taxes should not be raised now when done only on the rich and the taxes will not be used against the war effort (i.e., paying down the debt and cutting runaway spending)
Click to expand...

I have not argued once that taxes should only be raised for the rich; I will argue that the National Debt crisis we face now and will continue to face unless we increase taxes and cut spending, is as much of a danger to the stability and security of the US as were the Japanese and German military forces in the 1940s.
 
#83
#83
JayVols said:
That's what I'm advocating. CUTS to entitlements (poor) ELIMINATION OF BUSH TAX CUTS (wealthy and middle class). Is that not everyone sacrificing?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

not neccasarily. we'd still have a progressive tax system. if your question is whether i'd take it baring the current environment i'd say yes.
 
#85
#85
droski said:
not neccasarily. we'd still have a progressive tax system. if your question is whether i'd take it baring the current environment i'd say yes.
Click to expand...

I already said that I would support a new tax system. We have what we have now. The crisis is now. We have to deal with it with the bullets we have in the gun not the ones we see in the ammo catalog.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#86
#86
therealUT said:
I have not argued once that taxes should only be raised for the rich; I will argue that the National Debt crisis we face now and will continue to face unless we increase taxes and cut spending, is as much of a danger to the stability and security of the US as were the Japanese and German military forces in the 1940s.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. But spending is the problem. If I saw some signs that spending was going to be controlled, I would advocate letting the Bush tax cuts expire (on a temporary basis) in order to pay down the debt. Once debt and spending were manageable and economy improved, rates should return to around current levels but with everyone paying something.
 
#87
#87
therealUT said:
Your entire stance re: taxes and personal benefits assumes a simplicity that is not even in the ballpark of existence.
Click to expand...

disagree. we know for a fact that the poor to middle class take more money out than the put in and that the rich put more money in than they take out. is the number, i.e. my cost, debatable? certainly. but the difference is so out of wack at this point we know which direction the money is going.
 
#88
#88
vols4sure said:
Completely agree. But spending is the problem. If I saw some signs that spending was going to be controlled, I would advocate letting the Bush tax cuts expire (on a temporary basis) in order to pay down the debt. Once debt and spending were manageable and economy improved, rates should return to around current levels but with everyone paying something.
Click to expand...

what if it doesnt? Increasing taxes was a major cause of the Great Depression. Having people pay more taxes isnt going to solve our problems
 
#89
#89
vols4sure said:
Completely agree. But spending is the problem. If I saw some signs that spending was going to be controlled, I would advocate letting the Bush tax cuts expire (on a temporary basis) in order to pay down the debt. Once debt and spending were manageable and economy improved, rates should return to around current levels but with everyone paying something.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more; which is why I think the approach needs to focus on Medicare, Medicaid, SS, Defense, and taxes (I even advocate getting rid of Corporate Taxes and Capital Gains Taxes while raising individual rates).

When the ship is patched and righted, then we can return to a debate about the fairness of said taxes.
 
#90
#90
utvolpj said:
I don't believe the GOP stormed out of a meeting.

Without real cuts this is useless and we will continue to go down the BAU path to ruin. The gov't has the money to operate yet claim they need more. It's absolutely ridiculous for anyone to believe sending more money to DC is a good answer
Click to expand...
Cantor stormed out prior, and the only people saying Obama stormed out angry were... Cantor and a Republican aide. Dems do not view what happened. Surprise surprise. Cantor's being a hypocrite here, though.

droski said:
wait a minute. he clearly said he's comprimising and the gop isn't.
Click to expand...
Most of the GOP believe they're comprising on even discussing raising the debt ceiling to begin with. This is the opinion of Cantor, Bachmann, the Tea Party Patriots, etc. The idiocy is astounding. Finally took McConnell to realize "Oh shiz guys, things might look pretty bad for all of us if this doesn't get done..." Unlucky for him, the rest of his party called him a weasel.

Obama's already shown willingness to give a deal more favorable to Republicans than what the CBO recommended. Regardless of if you think the SS cuts were smoke and mirrors (I'm sure you do) but PBO stuck his neck out in an extreme way with his base by even mentioning it; if a deal got done on that basis, he would have put the final nail in the coffin containing his reelection chances. But the GOP isn't in a position to accept anything with any revenue increases (rates, loopholes or otherwise), because that is the explicitly stated wish of the TP base.

Weezy said:
I agree with Droski. Let's see the cuts first and make sure this isn't over the next decade.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you can't institute $2b in cuts in one FY, that would be disastrous.
 
#91
#91
droski said:
disagree. we know for a fact that the poor to middle class take more money out than the put in and that the rich put more money in than they take out. is the number, i.e. my cost, debatable? certainly. but the difference is so out of wack at this point we know which direction the money is going.
Click to expand...

Ok let the rich pay for personal police force, fire protection, water treatment, roads they drive, military protection, court system, food inspection, product safety inspection, etc themselves. The rest can still pool. See how that works.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#92
#92
droski said:
disagree. we know for a fact that the poor to middle class take more money out than the put in and that the rich put more money in than they take out. is the number, i.e. my cost, debatable? certainly. but the difference is so out of wack at this point we know which direction the money is going.
Click to expand...

For a fact? Exactly which qualitative measures are you arbitrarily trying to quantify and which are you arbitrarily attempting to ignore?

Seeing as how the biggest budget items are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense, I fail to see your argument as sound. Old people, as an entire group, can neither be categorized as poor nor rich: rich old people still use Medicare and draw Social Security. The Department of Defense has a tendency to protect "American Interests" abroad; these interests are usually the interests of the rich and powerful in America.
 
#93
#93
VolsNSkinsFan said:
what if it doesnt? Increasing taxes was a major cause of the Great Depression. Having people pay more taxes isnt going to solve our problems
Click to expand...

I understand but something has to be done about spending at some point. I think (and hope) the economy would be in better shape immediately if people honestly believed our spending situation would improve. Everyone knows tax hikes are inevitable and will continue to increase if the spending stays on the current course. My hope is that people would be willing to pay short term tax hikes (1) if it affected everyone and (2) would come with reigning in the spending. Otherwise, we would be taxed to oblivion in the coming years.
 
#94
#94
therealUT said:
Could not agree more; which is why I think the approach needs to focus on Medicare, Medicaid, SS, Defense, and taxes (I even advocate getting rid of Corporate Taxes and Capital Gains Taxes while raising individual rates).

When the ship is patched and righted, then we can return to a debate about the fairness of said taxes.
Click to expand...

Also agree (believe it or not since I know many knuckleheads on here think I advocate for socialism) and even, in my ideal world, all healthcare would be privatized into nonprofits and only subsidized on a linear sliding scale to a certain income.

Don't know about the capital gains tax though. I only know a base amount by capital markets, but does that not make it some sort of tax shelter? Couldn't one theoretically make an entire income without paying a dime in taxes?
 
#95
#95
therealUT said:
For a fact? Exactly which qualitative measures are you arbitrarily trying to quantify and which are you arbitrarily attempting to ignore?

Seeing as how the biggest budget items are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense, I fail to see your argument as sound. Old people, as an entire group, can neither be categorized as poor nor rich: rich old people still use Medicare and draw Social Security. The Department of Defense has a tendency to protect "American Interests" abroad; these interests are usually the interests of the rich and powerful in America.
Click to expand...

I'll say it for droski - "Class warfare! Class warfare!"
 
#96
#96
milohimself said:
Cantor stormed out prior, and the only people saying Obama stormed out angry were... Cantor and a Republican aide. Dems do not view what happened. Surprise surprise. Cantor's being a hypocrite here, though.


Most of the GOP believe they're comprising on even discussing raising the debt ceiling to begin with. This is the opinion of Cantor, Bachmann, the Tea Party Patriots, etc. The idiocy is astounding. Finally took McConnell to realize "Oh shiz guys, things might look pretty bad for all of us if this doesn't get done..." Unlucky for him, the rest of his party called him a weasel.

Obama's already shown willingness to give a deal more favorable to Republicans than what the CBO recommended. Regardless of if you think the SS cuts were smoke and mirrors (I'm sure you do) but PBO stuck his neck out in an extreme way with his base by even mentioning it; if a deal got done on that basis, he would have put the final nail in the coffin containing his reelection chances. But the GOP isn't in a position to accept anything with any revenue increases (rates, loopholes or otherwise), because that is the explicitly stated wish of the TP base.


I'm pretty sure you can't institute $2b in cuts in one FY, that would be disastrous.
Click to expand...

Don't give one iota of shiz. Republicans want true IMMEDIATE spending cuts. Obama HAS NOT offered this.
 
#97
#97
therealUT said:
For a fact? Exactly which qualitative measures are you arbitrarily trying to quantify and which are you arbitrarily attempting to ignore?

Seeing as how the biggest budget items are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense, I fail to see your argument as sound. Old people, as an entire group, can neither be categorized as poor nor rich: rich old people still use Medicare and draw Social Security. The Department of Defense has a tendency to protect "American Interests" abroad; these interests are usually the interests of the rich and powerful in America.
Click to expand...

relavance? how does a rich person on average cost more for medicare,medicaid, social security and defense than a poor person? particurally since the rich pay higher taxes on all things mentioned and also pay higher premiums. you seem to forget the dollar amounts that the rich pay over the poor are many multiples here.
 
#99
#99
milohimself said:
Also agree (believe it or not since I know many knuckleheads on here think I advocate for socialism) and even, in my ideal world, all healthcare would be privatized into nonprofits and only subsidized on a linear sliding scale to a certain income.

Don't know about the capital gains tax though. I only know a base amount by capital markets, but does that not make it some sort of tax shelter? Couldn't one theoretically make an entire income without paying a dime in taxes?
Click to expand...

i guess mods can make personal attacks. nice

money put into the capital markets has already been taxed. you want to start taxing money in my checking account too? how the hell is that a tax shelter?
 
#100
#100
vols4sure said:
Don't give one iota of shiz. Republicans want true IMMEDIATE spending cuts. Obama HAS NOT offered this.
Click to expand...

If the GOP offered a 3:1 or even a 4:1 cuts to revenue plan, I guarantee you Obama would sign off on it. He's already generated enough political damage from his own base for even suggesting SS cuts could be on the table. Aside from preventing the economy from crashing, what is there left to lose?

What Republicans want are true immediate spending cuts without one tenth of one percent more in taxes. That is their line in the sand.

The Dems line in the sand is some new taxes on wealthy and corporations through either rates or loophole eliminations because -- guess what -- that is what their base wants! Just like the TP for the GOP!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top