State of the Union address

[Drake]

Well he is in full campaign mode now. Everything is everyone else fault. Wasn't it Eisenhower that once said the buck stopped with him? Is it really so hard to want a leader that actually owns up to things? I know the president isn't all powerful because that isn't the way the system is designed but I am getting really tired of this bullshit woo is me nonsense.

 

[Matts96HB]

Im getting sick of it too. The whole kick the can down the road mentality is really getting old

 

[Briansol]

eventually there's no more can left to kick....

 

[Capt. Orygun]

I thought the speech was amazing, I think the results will leave something to be desired.

I'm all for a (regulated) free market, but Obama is, frankly, right on the tax issue. Mitt Romney paid a lower % in taxes than I did last year and there is nothing just about that. We need Reagan's tax structure: low rates with few loop holes for escape. You would be amazed just how much money a low tax rate can bring in when you aren't allowed to dodge paying taxes.

Little known fact: People paid more taxes under Reagan than they do Obama.

 

[Briansol]

cap gains are taxed at 15% for you, me, and anyone making millions. it's a flat tax. If you stop making w2 wages, you too can pay less than 15% total (after write offs, etc). If you don't like it, don't blame the rich guy- blame the tax code.

The only candidate who wants to change the tax code is Ron Paul.

 

[Capt. Orygun]

If you read my post it is in fact a critique of the current tax code, Romney was merely used as an illustration of what is wrong. What you said is simply not true: every candidate in this election wants to change the tax code, some just wish to go father than the others.

The tax code itself is basically fine, the problem is that every year private interests gain access to changes in the code. This is exactly what caused the 1988 tax reform under Reagan: loop holes had run rampant to the point where nobody (with the means to access them) paid anything close to their tax rate.

What we need is Clinton era tax percentages with Reagan era restrictions on loop holes. This would actually result in a lower tax rate than under Reagan. After that you slam the door: no more revising the code annually to give breaks to this or that without an executive regulatory agency (or sub agency) to police congress and inform the president so that vetos may be handed out liberally.

 

[Capt. Orygun]

The agency should also be required to publish their findings quarterly so that greater transparency is present.

 

[BigJ]

I thought the speech was amazing, I think the results will leave something to be desired.

I'm all for a (regulated) free market, but Obama is, frankly, right on the tax issue. Mitt Romney paid a lower % in taxes than I did last year and there is nothing just about that. We need Reagan's tax structure: low rates with few loop holes for escape. You would be amazed just how much money a low tax rate can bring in when you aren't allowed to dodge paying taxes.

Little known fact: People paid more taxes under Reagan than they do Obama.

I'm agreeing with your open mindedness more and more.

 

[Briansol]

I'd like to go to pre-FDR income tax levels.

ya know, when there wasn't one to pay for all the social programs....

 

[Capt. Orygun]

I'd like to go to pre-FDR income tax levels.

ya know, when there wasn't one to pay for all the social programs....

It will never happen. Social programs were the product of increased wealth an efficiency. You wanna guess how many people it took to build a car before the assembly line? You wanna guess how many it took after that same assembly line was built? The result was more profits with fewer jobs.

The same thing is happening today: you wanna guess how many people it takes to sell books at a Barns and Noble? You wanna guess how any people it takes to sell books on Amazon? Efficiency breeds two things: profit and joblessness.

The balance is that through taxes we can find funds for unemployment for those who are displaced until the economy grows or recovers enough to produce new jobs.

The key assumption of those who want no social programs, indeed an untrue assumption, is that they do not benefit society. This is simply not true, in fact, the type of wealth some people now enjoy would be impossible without the tax and social welfare structure.

Imagine a taxless world. Go and make your money. But you will awake with your goods stolen by starving families and no police to enforce your right to property. The social structure is absolutely necessary to the retention of wealth. Yet we treat a 4% tax increase for the top earners in this country as complete socialism, when in fact the tax rate would still be lower than it was 12, 20, or 30 years ago.

 

[reckedracing]

there is benefit, as always there are people who NEED assistance
but the inefficiency of our government is what turns workers into leeches, and leeches provide no benefit to our society

 

[Capt. Orygun]

That's true but the perception of inefficiency is far greater than reality.

Take drug testing for welfare for example. I was initially all for it, if you are poor because you take drugs it's your own fault. And I cheered when Florida passed their law mandating drug tests. The problem now is that the savings from the drug tests aren't enough to cover the costs of the program, but what was the perception just a year ago? It seemed like an epidemic! Do I think people should receive welfare if they are on drugs? Of course not. But, sometimes these "fixes" cost more money than they save, and the reason is fear.

 

[|Chaz|]

Imagine a taxless world. Go and make your money. But you will awake with your goods stolen by starving families and no police to enforce your right to property. The social structure is absolutely necessary to the retention of wealth. Yet we treat a 4% tax increase for the top earners in this country as complete socialism, when in fact the tax rate would still be lower than it was 12, 20, or 30 years ago.

Pretty sure that's what guns are for... honest people wouldn't steal and criminals would be shot... sounds pretty good to me...

I'm tired of all the wrist slapping, I don't care if it's even petty criminal shit, punish them so they will never forget. I've never stolen a thing in my life because I'm honest. I'm sure the majority of you also have never stolen anything (not counting pirating, because that's a whole nother' can of worms.) Steal a candy bar, get your hand cut off. I don't care if it's extreme, how is cuffing them hauling them to jail, holding them at our (the taxpayer's expense) and putting a mark on their record affecting them at all when they don't live in the real world and don't give a fuck. Chop off their hand and they'll only be able to steal one more time...

Not that I'm not for taxation, but seriously, the government needs to calm down on taxing the fuck out of the upper middle class/middle class and poor.

Mitt Romney only paid 14% in taxes last year because it wasn't actually "earned income" tell me why should this money that he worked even less harder for not be taxed more than the money that the rest of us American's work our asses off 365 days of the year for? Think about it that way. If the money requires less work to earn, why shouldn't you have to pay more of it. I even paid more in taxes (percentage wise) than Romney did and I make a measly 20k a year.

 

[|Chaz|]

You're right, I calculated it. And holy fuck are the rest of you getting raped by taxes...

 

[Capt. Orygun]

To your argument about poverty and honesty: Honest people steal when hungry. If you cancel social security tomorrow you will have millions of starving families, you expect them to starve to death quietly? It's not like there is a surplus of jobs out there that they would just have to go out and get if their welfare was cut off. Some of them? Yes. Most? No.

On the deterrence model of punishment: Again, there are socioeconomic reasons which drive a lot of crime and the detterence model doesn't effect those. Property crime decreased dramatically with the advent of the welfare state. What use is a second hand to someone who will not survive another month without stealing?

Abolishing the welfare state will never happen because those in charge, even the Republicans, know that it's simply not an option. It's rhetoric, propaganda, so that you will look the other way while they create loop holes so the top 1% can increase the proportion of wealth they have while the middle class carries the burden of this nation.

 

[DarkHand]

Mitt Romney only paid 14% in taxes last year because it wasn't actually "earned income" tell me why should this money that he worked even less harder for not be taxed more than the money that the rest of us American's work our asses off 365 days of the year for? Think about it that way. If the money requires less work to earn, why shouldn't you have to pay more of it. I even paid more in taxes (percentage wise) than Romney did and I make a measly 20k a year.

That's an interesting tax strategy... Taxability on wealth based on the effort required to obtain said wealth. Worked hard for your paycheck? Uber low taxes. Sat in Maui and earned interest on Daddy's inheritance money? Uber high taxes.

 

[|Chaz|]

To your argument about poverty and honesty: Honest people steal when hungry. If you cancel social security tomorrow you will have millions of starving families, you expect them to starve to death quietly? It's not like there is a surplus of jobs out there that they would just have to go out and get if their welfare was cut off. Some of them? Yes. Most? No.

On the deterrence model of punishment: Again, there are socioeconomic reasons which drive a lot of crime and the detterence model doesn't effect those. Property crime decreased dramatically with the advent of the welfare state. What use is a second hand to someone who will not survive another month without stealing?

Abolishing the welfare state will never happen because those in charge, even the Republicans, know that it's simply not an option. It's rhetoric, propaganda, so that you will look the other way while they create loop holes so the top 1% can increase the proportion of wealth they have while the middle class carries the burden of this nation.

If I was honest and hungry.

1. I would first off join the military, they're always hiring. If the military ever became defunct and was no longer hiring.
2. I'd ask my parents for help, if they couldn't I'd ask my grandparents for help, if they couldn't help I'd ask my friends for help.
3. If both of the above fail, I'd make a trip down to a warmer climate and live in the woods, hunting what I could and sustaining myself.

People are just too fucking lazy, everyone believes they should get stuff because they are important, when the fuck did every single human being regardless of how useless become "special." You're not entitled to being a special person unless you're born into it, and even then, you're not special, your wealth is what buys it for you.

When I worked at Kohls we had a "special needs" employee working alongside of us oh and guess who was standing right next to her telling her what to do constantly, a government worker likely making more than the minimum wage I was making. See, does that make any sense? Oh no we can't not hire her, that's against the law! Come on, common sense dictates that she is physically and mentally incapable of working, why the fuck do we have to hire her and then hire another person to do the work for her?

Property crime decreased dramatically with the advent of the welfare state.
Not that I don't believe you, but please provide a source.








Finally, why do we allow the .01% to keep dominating our country?

That's an interesting tax strategy... Taxability on wealth based on the effort required to obtain said wealth. Worked hard for your paycheck? Uber low taxes. Sat in Maui and earned interest on Daddy's inheritance money? Uber high taxes.

Lmao, I know right?

 

[Briansol]

I
The balance is that through taxes we can find funds for unemployment for those who are displaced until the economy grows or recovers enough to produce new jobs.

unemployment isn't funded by income tax.
It's funded by an employer.

The key assumption of those who want no social programs, indeed an untrue assumption, is that they do not benefit society. This is simply not true, in fact, the type of wealth some people now enjoy would be impossible without the tax and social welfare structure.

it's not that we want nothing, it's that we want them to no longer be permanent fixtures in people's lives.

Imagine a taxless world.

. No one ever said anything about a taxless world. We're talking about income tax here, and nothing else.

There would still be taxes on everything else.

And where any deficiencies in funding should come from should be in the form of imports. get your 30% if you need it at the docks. THIS is how income levels are retained to fund anything, and in the long term, jobs come home because american-made products can be priced competitively again.


Almost EVERY other country in the world does this in some shape or another. VAT in the uk, GST in Canada, etc etc....

If you cancel social security tomorrow you will have millions of starving families, you expect them to starve to death quietly?

And this obvioulsy would never happen. But it could stop tomorrow for 17 year olds and younger. They would no longer have to pay in to it, and by the time the 18 year olds today get to retirement age, it's basically been a pro-rated contribution that is very low compared to those today currently on it. It will take an entire generation or 2 to completely phase it out successfully and honestly.

It's not like there is a surplus of jobs out there that they would just have to go out and get if their welfare was cut off. Some of them? Yes. Most? No.

It is this exact mentality that causes the problems. WHY BOTHER? I CAN JUST COLLECT.
And since we can't shoot 'em to protect our property, the hippies keep winning.

On the deterrence model of punishment: Again, there are socioeconomic reasons which drive a lot of crime and the detterence model doesn't effect those. Property crime decreased dramatically with the advent of the welfare state. What use is a second hand to someone who will not survive another month without stealing?

jail isn't a deterrent. It's a hotel stay for some of these people. All their friends are there anyway.
And jail just costs more money than welfare does in the first place.

If you don't want to work, that's fine. sell drugs or something. At least EARN a living.

There is ZERO excuse for any able-bodied person to be on welfare from birth to death. ZERO.

Abolishing the welfare state will never happen because those in charge, even the Republicans, know that it's simply not an option. It's rhetoric, propaganda, so that you will look the other way while they create loop holes so the top 1% can increase the proportion of wealth they have while the middle class carries the burden of this nation.

It is this exact mentality that makes our country suck. Thank you for continuning to think this.

The problem with the burden of this nation IS the burden of this nation. Pick the leeches from the skin. Punish failure, not success. Help, and teach, don't do it for them.

the mindset of the average 'poor' american is broken. It needs to be changed.. I really feel bad for kids today and their kids. The world is going to be like the future in Terra Nova. Shit.

It's now or never.
Adapt and change or die.