Democrats vs republicans

[ariscus99 1]

Actually the republicans are on the wrong side of many of the things people want.

1) The vast majority supported tax cuts for those making under $250,000 and opposed them for those making over $250,000 - opposed by the majority of republicans

2) The majority of people supported repeal of DADT - opposed by majority of republicans

3) The majority of people supported the START treaty -opposed by majority of republicans.

4) The majority of people also support funding for our schools

5) Only 13% support any cuts to SS

So the republicans aren't really supporting what people want. People think they want cuts in spending until they find out that the cuts impact them. What they mean is that they want cuts that impacts the other guy, not them.

And as far as the robin hood theory of yours - well if the wealthy are so savvy then they will have plenty of tax sheltered income to protect them in retirement. Also, you pay into SS independent of your marital status, but your marital status is used to calculate your SS benefits so I guess we can call that the "screw marriage" tax.

And a flat tax is more punitive the lower the income is. 10% of those making $50,000 is $5000 - which means a lot to a family making that much. But 10% of $1 million is $100,000 leaving the millionaire with $900,000. Hardly a dent.

Hardly a dent? If we taxed everything at 20% we would collect right around $3T, which almost covers the bloated budget we have now. Make a few key cuts to say the IRS as they would no longer be needed because the tax code could be about 3 lines. And if the lower class wants to save more money you just don't spend, grow a garden, raise a pig and slaughter it, thats what my family had to do when I was a kid. My parents would pick vegetables from the dump, you can take brusslesprouts and peel away a few layers and there's good food there, same with lettuce. If you have the desire and the willingness to work hard and sacrifice I strongly believe you can make it. There are just far to few people in this country with that desire. You could essentially live almost tax free if you were careful.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

As I've said several times, I'm all for cutting the DOD budget. However, any realistic cut is merely a drop in the bucket. Sure we can and should, shut down all of our bases in other countries, bring home as many troops as possible, but again, this is all a drop in the bucket when we're looking at close to a $1T budget short fall. A flat tax would take care of most of these problems, but our spending is still out of control

Social Security in unsustainable according to the Social Security Board of Trustee's, the systematic phase out of social security as described above or in some similar way WILL get us back on track. No logical person wants to get rid of SS right now, cold turkey, most everyone knows too many people rely on it know, thats why you start to phase it out, pick an age, and go from there, raise the eligibility age for those within the age category so they don't collect as long and we can get back to a sustainable level.

Times are tuff, cuts must be made. Again I know it's George W.'s fault, bad bad boy, shame on you. Now what?

It's all about what the right wing media can get people to believe - the bigger the lie, the more it's repeated, the more it is believed:

Like giving tax cuts to the rich creates jobs.

The states' deficit are due to public employee unions

Social Security is broke

None of them is true but the right wing media and the hypocritical republicans repeat them over and over again.

Social Security is not going broke

• February 17th, 2011 1:09 am ET

Conventional wisdom says that Social Security is a "pyramid scheme" teetering on the edge of collapse, and that anyone unlucky enough to be paying into the system today is unlikely to see a penny of their money after they retire.

A piece in the Economist magazine makes this very point. Writer Erica Grieder says she views all communications from the Social Security Administration as "fiction" and actually collecting Social Security benefits someday is "something I obviously do not expect to ever be able to do."

But the conventional wisdom --and Ms Grieder-- are wrong. President Obama made this point in his press conference Tuesday, reminding a reporter who referenced "the long-term crushing costs of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid" that "Social Security is not the huge contributor to the deficit that the other two entitlements are."

The Washington Post's Greg Sargent thinks the president may have meant that Social Security is only a marginal problem and not a huge contributor to the deficit, and that Social Security doesn't belong in the same camp as Medicare and Medicaid, which do have more serious problems because of the rising cost of health care itself.

At Mother Jones magazine, Kevin Drum agrees. "Medicare is a problem," he says. "But unless you believe that the United States is literally going to collapse in the near future, Social Security isn't. Period."

Drum explains that if payroll taxes never go up, then by 2040 Social Security benefits will have to be trimmed by about 25 percent. But "one way or another, at some level between 75% and 100% of what we've promised, Social Security benefits will always be there. This is not a Ponzi scheme. It's not unsustainable."

Cynics will argue that Social Security gets lumped in with Medicare and Medicaid because many politicians don't want to have to pay back the loans they took out of the Social Security Trust fund to pay for other projects (like tax cuts).

A few tweaks to the payroll tax could keep Social Security solvent in perpetuity. Drum points out that Social Security costs about 4.5% of GDP. As more boomers retire, that cost will rise, eventually to about six percent of GDP by 2030. The simple answer it to slowly increase payroll taxes by 1.5 percent of GDP.

One suggestion often mentioned is to raise the cap on payroll tax, presently at $106,000, which seems far more practical [and fair] than Paul Ryan and Rand Paul wailing that we are "all going to die" unless we raise the retirement age to 70. Or eliminate the cap altogether. That way, people who get multimillion-dollar annual bonuses would pay full Social Security taxes on them, and their employers (the ones that pay them the bonuses) would have to pay the full match. Currently they pay nothing beyond the $106,000. For the person making $105,000, critics argue that's disproportionate and unfair.

Why, for example, should someone making less than $106,000 pay the 6 percent of their total gross salary, but when it comes to millionaires and up, it works out to a far, far smaller percentage of gross income?

The president said he's confident he'll be able to get those "minor adjustments" made in the next few years. But even if he's wrong, Social Security isn't going broke.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Social Security is not going broke - National populist | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-national/social-security-is-not-going-broke#ixzz1EjOdy91q

[ariscus99 1]

Here's Geithner saying SSwill be giving out more than it takes in by 2016 and will be broke by 2037. But I imagine a few columnists now more than the treasury secretary. Also the other link I posted about it was from the social security committee, but they also probably now less than a few columnists do.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Hardly a dent? If we taxed everything at 20% we would collect right around $3T, which almost covers the bloated budget we have now. Make a few key cuts to say the IRS as they would no longer be needed because the tax code could be about 3 lines. And if the lower class wants to save more money you just don't spend, grow a garden, raise a pig and slaughter it, thats what my family had to do when I was a kid. My parents would pick vegetables from the dump, you can take brusslesprouts and peel away a few layers and there's good food there, same with lettuce. If you have the desire and the willingness to work hard and sacrifice I strongly believe you can make it. There are just far to few people in this country with that desire. You could essentially live almost tax free if you were careful.

Tell me that you did not just post this crap. You want to raise the taxes on the poor and middle class and lower them on the rich (from 35.6% to 20%). The poor and middle class depend on deductions which help spur the economy. Being able to deduct mortgage interest helps middle class buy homes. You want some poor guy making $40,000 trying to support his family have to pay $8000 in taxes with no deductions.

And btw - when I said hardly a dent I was referring to a millionaires income going from $1 million to $900,000 in my example which would hardly dent his purchasing power.

We do have a spending problem with bloated defense budgets and corporate welfare but we have an even bigger revenue collection problem with too low of taxes on the rich. It has long been the goal of the republicans (and they are succeeding) to take money from the poor and middle class and give it to the rich.

BUT HERE IS THE MOST INSULTING PART OF YOUR PLAN:

You want the rich to get richer and the poor to scavange for food in dumpsters. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, send this idea into the RNC and ask that all republicans running for office run on this platform. I would love them to. That way we could get rid of those extremists known as republicans once and for all.

If they dared to suggest such a despicable and insulting plan the riots in Cairo would pale in comparison and I would be out there with them.

SO YOU READ IT FIRST HERE, FOLKS, THE REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC PLAN:

THE RICH PAY LESS TAXES, THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR MORE AND LET THEM SCAVANGE DUMPSTERS FOR FOOD.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Here's Geithner saying SSwill be giving out more than it takes in by 2016 and will be broke by 2037. But I imagine a few columnists now more than the treasury secretary. Also the other link I posted about it was from the social security committee, but they also probably now less than a few columnists do.

These columnists were also offering some tweaking of SS to help it with some of its problems, like I offered, too. But republicans want to keep saying it is going broke so that they can cut benefits. I'm not buying it.

[ariscus99 1]

For the record I'm not saying people need to go to the extremes that my family did. I'm only offering the solutions that we used in order to stay off of government assistance, and to do our part.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

If the media is so liberal why didn't even I hear about this until I read it on (crack pot ) daily kos?

Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 05:00 PM EST

Media yawns as a third federal judge upholds constitutionality of health care reform

by Jed Lewison

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler became the third federal judge to rule in favor of the health care reform law's constitutionality, but as with each of the other rulings in favor of reform, Kessler's decision has barely made a ripple in the media.

In contrast, coverage of Judge Roger Vinson's decision against reform saturated the media, even though his ruling had no immediate impact on health reform.

The Vinson ruling received A1 coverage in The New York Times and dominated cable news. The Kessler ruling was covered on A14 of the Times and as far as cable news goes, I was only able to find two references to it -- both on Fox, and each for less than a minute. (I'm basing this on closed caption text searches, so it's possible I missed a couple of references, but there was hardly any coverage at all.)

After the Vinson ruling, Steve Benen pointed out the huge disparity in coverage between the two rulings in favor of reform and the two rulings against reform. Even if you were to dismiss the significance of those numbers on the theory that the rulings against reform were bigger news because they happened after the rulings that upheld reform, yesterday's ruling should be at least as significant as Vinson's ruling because it means that three judges have now ruled in favor of reform compared with two who have ruled against it.

Ultimately, the real test will be in the Supreme Court, but if you dismiss the importance of the Kessler ruling on that basis, then you should also have dismissed the Vinson ruling. That's actually where I'm at: I don't think any of these rulings are huge news. But given that the media treated the Vinson ruling as a Really Big Deal, they should be doing the same with the Kessler ruling.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

In the never ending saga of republican hypocrisy we have this story. Now keep in mind that thirteen republican state attorney generals are suing the federal government over the Affordable Health care and that they are using tax payer money to do so. If they are so cash strapped, where are they getting this money? Nebraska is one of those states and the Nebraska republican governor Heineman has the nerve to go hat in hand to the federal government. It sure takes cajones.

Also, keep in mind that these same republican governors who regularly bash Obama and the federal government and the stimulus were more than happy to take that stimulus with one hand while criticizing it with the other. Now, they want the federal government to bail them out by not making spending cuts that will affect them. Hmmm. I thought the republicans said they had a mandate from the people to cut spending. But again, in true hypcritical fashion - they support cuts as long as it doesn't affect them (and that goes for people who support cuts in spending too - as long as they don't lose their job or are otherwise affected by the cuts then they're okay.)

Governors to feds: Avoid causing states any more painSunday, February 27, 2011By Liz Sidoti, The Associated PressWASHINGTON -- Their states on the brink of financial catastrophe, governors pleaded Saturday for the divided federal government to avoid doing anything that would hamper the tenuous economic recovery back home.

Their message to Washington: Prevent a government shutdown, abstain from spending cuts that dramatically will affect states and end even preliminary discussions about allowing states to declare bankruptcy.

"Anything that Congress does that will undermine our recovery is quite troublesome to us," said Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, head of the National Governors Association, as she opened the bipartisan group's winter meeting. "We're asking for cooperation."

"We don't need a hiccup now in our recovery," she added. "We are fragile."

States have made $75 billion in budget cuts and raised taxes by $33 billion over the past two years to make up for budget shortfalls caused by the recession. Governors drained reserve cash funds and oversaw several rounds of severe budget cuts, so much so that Republicans and Democrats alike now are focused on how to completely remake state governments.

The overall economic situation in states is improving.

"Recovering, not recovered," as Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, put it.

High unemployment persists. Even more dire budget situations are to come.

Over the next 21/2 years, states face an estimated $175 billion more in budget gaps that they have no choice but to fill. The hole is caused partly because an initial infusion of cash from President Barack Obama's economic stimulus law, as well as extensions of that money, will dry up in June. States received $103 billion in Medicaid money and $48 billion in education dollars to soften the recession's blow.

Ms. Gregoire and the NGA's vice chairman, Gov. Dave Heineman, R-Neb., recently met with House and Senate leaders as well as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and asked them to be mindful of how the loss of the money, as well as further spending cuts, could hurt states.

The warnings come just as the Commerce Department reported that state and local responses to the fiscal crisis were undercutting the national recovery, slowing economic growth. Governors said the report only proved their point.

"For two years, governors have said when we cut we impact the recovery," said Ms. Gregoire. "We know we have to make the cuts, but we can ill afford to have Congress on top of that cutting us more because the result will slow the recovery in our home states and in the nation."

Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, noted that, unlike the federal government, states are required to balance their budgets. Noting the painful cuts, he said, "We don't have any choice."

To ease the pain, Maine Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican, urged the federal government to loosen regulations that he says are hindering the recovery.

The governors met in Washington as Republicans who control the House and Democrats who run the Senate are in a high-stakes debate over the federal budget and trillion-dollar deficits.

GOP leaders have faced pressure from a contingent of newly elected tea party-supported lawmakers to cut spending even deeper than originally planned, setting up a clash with the White House and Senate Democrats over legislation necessary to keep the government running past this coming Friday's deadline.

[loserbob 11]

Just more republican hypocrisy. Pennsylvania rep gov Tom Corbett refuses to tax Marcellus Shale drilling in Pennsylvania even though 2/3 of the state support a tax. We have a $4 billion budget gap, we're cutting education funding and many other programs. According to the articcle, every other major NG producing state has a tax and some of the biggest drillers do not oppose a tax as long as its reasonable. Ray Walker, vice pres of Range Resources and chairman of the Marcellus Shale Coalition said "we are willing to discuss a severance tax but the new governor isnt."

Dont worry though, he wants to impose an impact fee(rep word for tax!). He will let his NEWLY FORMED Marcellus Shale Advisory Commismision calculate those costs. Gee, I thought only the dems liked big gov beauracracies, he'll waste more money paying employees of his new beauracracy, well maybe he'll have to TAX the gas drillers then. No, to hell with taxing these big companies we'll just keep taxing our Pennsylvania residents!

99, Im sure you'll have a great answer for this!

[ariscus99 1]

I'm 100% for a flat tax for everyone, all businesses included. No deductions, no loopholes, flat tax, then everyone pays their share.

On a side note I find it interesting that the person who criticized me for starting a thread about the texas house passing a bill has nothing to say about this not being the place to post stuff. Maybe that person was a dem who didn't wanna hear bad things.

[loserbob 11]

I'm 100% for a flat tax for everyone, all businesses included. No deductions, no loopholes, flat tax, then everyone pays their share.

On a side note I find it interesting that the person who criticized me for starting a thread about the texas house passing a bill has nothing to say about this not being the place to post stuff. Maybe that person was a dem who didn't wanna hear bad things.

I think it was the same day he became a member of Lapbandtalk. Get ready for more posto to be banned. We'll have to try our hardest not to offend him or her! Hey, if your listening(reading), I cant remember your name) This area of lapband talk has warnings about off topic debates, if you think you'll be offended or this doesnt interest you, STAY THE #%@& OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[loserbob 11]

Hardly a dent? If we taxed everything at 20% we would collect right around $3T, which almost covers the bloated budget we have now. Make a few key cuts to say the IRS as they would no longer be needed because the tax code could be about 3 lines. And if the lower class wants to save more money you just don't spend, grow a garden, raise a pig and slaughter it, thats what my family had to do when I was a kid. My parents would pick vegetables from the dump, you can take brusslesprouts and peel away a few layers and there's good food there, same with lettuce. If you have the desire and the willingness to work hard and sacrifice I strongly believe you can make it. There are just far to few people in this country with that desire. You could essentially live almost tax free if you were careful.

I know this post is old but if you grow and raise all your food the gov would find a way to tax you. Look a hybrid cars, I believe Wash. state is considering a tax on hybrids because less gas means less tax money fom gas, so they' figure taxing hybrids will make up the difference. Why even buy a hybrid?

[loserbob 11]

I cant figure it out. General Motors has doubled its profits this year, most other big corp are making record profits, oil companies making record profits as usual, Marcellus Shale (nat gas drilling in eastern U.S.) drilling is in every farm , forest and state park in the area. I went to a grocery store over the weekend, every checkout line was open and 8-10 people deep, same with Lowes. All usual eateries (Olive Garden, TGI, Applebees, Texas Roadhouse, etc) had a 1-1 1/2 hour wait but yet the economy is down and there are concerns of a double-dip recession.

My other question is, the republicans say we cant tax big corp because they provide the jobs for the country and therefore wont hire(theyre not hiring as it is. The big corps are sitting on 2 trillion dollars).

In the next breath they say small businesses are the job creators,(earnings under $250,000.00 a year), which is it?

Why do politicians make the debt crisis so complicated? Each side has their solutions and they all seem to benefit that side politically for sure and monitarily Im sure. Why dont they pull out of both wars and deal with OPEC to lower oil prices, that would solve at least 90% of the problem! All this bs about bad loans, people taking on more credit than they could afford, true to an extent but when oil, gas, energy and inflation go up basically overnight it made it hard on everyone, nobody expected it to happen, or at least not as quickly as it did. With our wealth and supposed power in the world we should be able to "persuade" OPEC into lowering oil prices, without us there would be no OPEC. I wish Donald Trump wasnt such an idiot, he said during his first hour in office he would deal with OPEC and China, so far I havent heard any legitimate candidate even mention either. Of course maybe deal meant paying him off also! However i think someone like him might put a little fear into them. Even though Im somewhat happy with Obama and I do believe he is sincere(my opinion), I dont believe he is respected enough(maybe feared is a better word) to persuade anyone. I dont see it even being possible for years because as it looks right now we're going to have either Obama again or the retread who couldnt win 3 years ago Romney!

While the middle class worries about paying utility bills and putting food on the table and figuring out ways to even see and spend time with their families they'll keep struggling to carry the country while the rich get richer and the poor stay poor because theres no incentive to change(Im not talking about people who dont abuse the system and I dont call them "handouts") and the politicians who are so out of touch with reality cry and argue like kids who dont get their way! Prime example, who cares if the FAA employees are out of work and dont get paid, I deserve a vacation because I avoided a default by agreeing on a great debt deal! See you after my vaacation so we can work on a new debt deal we might go into default in 6 months!

WHAT A BUNCH OF BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pattygreen 5]

The problem is with the government and their big spending. Congress gives themselves full salary for life, even after just a 4 year term. (Our troops don't even get that.)The people need to demand term limits and figure out a way to get congress to stop favoring themselves financially and politically. I must admit that I haven't read but only a few of the comments on this thread, but this is a topic I like to debate. Hi Cleo's mom and loser bob.

[loserbob 11]

Well welcome back. You've come to the right place for debate!