USA Politics

How Colorado does national politics (seen in the local paper):

"Rep. Jared Polis, a Boulder Democrat and an Internet entrepreneur, has been a leading opponent of [SOPA]. In protest, Polis entered the lyrics of "The Internet Is for Porn" into the Congressional Record in December."
 
Heard today that billionaire Romney is paying less tax (because he pays tax over his investments right?) than common American income tax, now that is ridiculous.

Saw some fragments of the State of the Union and Obama is going for the full attack on the Republicans, this time. Election time awwwwwyeah!!

Great speech on the taxes. "Most Americans would call that COMMON SENSE"


Shared responsibility.

Whole speech here:
 
Not really, the capital gains tax rate is 15%, if you make money on investments/property/some business ventures, that is what your tax rate is. I am not sure how discouraging investment into the private sector is really a good idea in a bad economy.

There is risk in investment and that risk taking allows companies to expand.

I suppose folks like Obama believe that money is best spent when filtered through the government ... I (and hopefully most Americans) do not. almost half of Americans did not pay any income taxes last year and assuming the tax code stays the same next year, that will continue (certainly in part part due to a poor economy). It is also worth noting, that obviously the federal government game up with this monstrosity of a tax code sue to over reaching, social engineering, flat out bribery, etc. I am not sure why the solution people come up with is to give that same entity even more power.

Nor do I understand how people in government complain about what people are paying in taxes when they set up the rules that people like Romney follow. No one is saying he cheated his taxes, they are complaining that he did exactly what he should.

There are plenty of studies out there that show the top 5% of Americans pay more taxes than the other 95%, I am not really sure how that is not "paying your fair share"
 
Governments should decide where to allocate resources, not who should provide them.
What's wrong with a flat tax?
No loopholes, no need for a huge bureaucracy to administrate them.
No push and pull between special interests to see who gets the breaks.
Taxation should be a tool to pay for what a society thinks it needs and can afford.
Not a mechanism for social manipulation.
Just everyone paying the same percentage of what they make.
 
Pretty much agree, most of what does go to the feds should be sent back to the states (or better yet, just keep more of it at the state and local level to begin with ), with the obvious exceptions of what goes to defense/state department/some commerce activities.
 
Watch it as soon as you do. Ron Paul is saying what should be said instead of what people WANT to hear. I feel that they are running for student council president and all the candidates are saying, "I'll extend our lunches! I'll make sure we can have soda machines in the cafeteria! No more detention!"

While Ron Paul is saying, "I'll make sure the teachers are doing their job! I'll make sure we are getting healthy lunches! We don't need more Pep rallies to support an already solid football team, we need to make sure your student government isn't plotting against you!" Which, I think, is fucking awesome :)
 
Ron Paul is crazy. And yes, eh has some good ideas, but you know what? He's also a racist, misogynist fool who'd destroy the economy. I'd like to see some Ron Paul-like balls with someone who has actual sense.
 
I do not think we would destroy the economy at all by reducing governments role in it (in fact, that would be a major improvement at this point). I suppose people can argue about the proper role of the federal government/government period, but I think American;'s trust in government's ability to get anything done is near zero. Their programs generally fall into , the categories of being ill conceived, poorly executed, over budget, over time, rife with fraud, and a flat out waste of money.

I agree Paul is not the best messenger, but he is on target with many of his ideas.
 
Who cares if he's racist? So was Churchill. I think we need to give people a little bit more credit that their personal believes won't interfere with their public office. I hate Reagan, I do, but one of the few good things he did was Legalize abortion in California, very much against his personal religious beliefs.
 
Economists from across the spectrum think Paul's economics idea are suicide, so...I'm really not thinking that he's a good choice. It's not the de-regulation idea. I think that's wrong - the proper way to go about it is better regulation, not less. A deregulated market leads to perfect greed, not perfect cooperation. But he wants to go back to the gold standard. Yikes.
 
The Gold standard is a bit far, I am not familiar with all the planks in his platform, however I am in favor of the overall libertarian philosophy as it can be applied in the 21st Century. To me, that means less regulation (both in matters of fiscal and personal),a stripped down simplified tax code (or better yet zero income tax and a national sales tax) and putting more powers in state and local government for non Foreign Policy and Defense matters and possibly some information clearing house tasks in other areas. The realist in me knows this will not happen any time soon, but I will support people and policies that move the country in this general direction. That usually makes for some odd bedfellows when you argue for lower taxes and less regulation in fiscal matters and legal pot, gay marriage, etc. on the other hand.
 
It shouldn't. I don't necessarily agree with no income tax - sales taxes punish the poor overly much and decrease their ability to get off of safety networks while increasing the cost of same. Progressive income tax is nothing to be feared, as long as the corporate tax and other taxes are fair. If the US ended all the various loopholes, they'd then be able to establish a better tax rate.

I'm not against a national sales tax as an addendum, but relying only on that for raising funds would mean a very large tax. I'd like to see the budget decrease as well. Defense spending is the logical point to start, I think.
 
I would only be in favor of a sales tax if there were no income tax, the current income tax started off as a "tax the rich" scheme and obviously went way beyond that. Most state sales taxes exclude the basics, like food. There are all kinds of logical places to start cutting the budget (both long and short term), the goal should be to end the need for programs to exist, not just keep pouring good money after bad to the point where multiple generations rely on government aid and the entire entitlement society we have created.

Defense, education, energy, HUD, HHS, and Commerce would be the top of the cut list to me ... none of this means I am anti-defense/housing/energy/education/etc ... it means I think we can do it better with less funds/some of this should not be at the federal level at all.
 
Very few programs need exist. The overwhelming majority of homeless are not lazy poor people, but mentally ill, unemployable people. Agencies such as the one I used work at are sadly a necessity. Few of my clients were too sick to function. As in even while receiving proper care and medication they are still too ill (The schizophrenic that even on medication would still hear voices except that they were no longer yelling and insulting him, now he could pleasantly chat with them).

Aside from that there are a number of programs that need to be cut. I think Paul wouldn't go to any extreme he is currently spouting, congress wouldn't let him, the beauty of checks and balances. Look at Obama, a lot of the things he's tried have died in Congress, because they just want to piss him off.

As for taxes, Income tax is unconstitutional, and we could get rid of property tax as well and actually own the property we purchase.
 
Onhell said:
Income tax is unconstitutional, and we could get rid of property tax as well and actually own the property we purchase.
Click to expand...

Oh this again... No, it's not. All arguments to prove so - say, the thing about Ohio not having ratified - have been established as pure bunk.

As for property tax... sure get rid of it. You're going to fix your own potholes and home-school your kids, right? In most cities, those are the two things that most property taxes go to.

I own my house - and I mean I own it, free and clear, not some bank holding a mortgage. Paying property taxes doesn't make me feel like I don't own my property. In fact the opposite: I'm required to pay because as a property owner, I now have an obligation to contribute to the area I own that property in. If I wasn't the owner, they wouldn't be asking me to pay.
 
I do not have a big problem with property tax, that generally goes to local/state projects .... those tend to be for more practical matters (potholes, schools, etc.), I own a home and pay them as well. My problems are much more with the federal govt than local/state (though if I still lived in CA, I would probably not be making this statement)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top