REPUBLICANS take it all...how bad would it really be?

Since Saddam is the person responsible for the most Iraqi deaths (via starting two stupid wars vs. Iran and vs. the world), it seems to me that getting rid of him would be the best thing for Iraq.

 

At the Convention they are trying to fire up the Party more so than reach out to undecideds or potential new supporters. One possible explantion for when they show Watts versus Largent.

ESource I agree with you this is the most important aspect to this upcoming elections. Massive tax cuts, massive change in domestic programs and expenditures, massive military buildup, nah, those things are not going to be swung by a few votes (whether the Repu have 52-51-50-49-48 Senate seats). Checks on putting extremists in the Supreme Court is a little dangerous though and a few middle seats could make a big difference as far as furthering the erosion of protections from search and seizers, civil rights, women's rights, etc. Of course then it up to every justice from liberal to moderate-right (e.g., Occonnor) to delay stepping down until the climate is more balanced—they may very well check themselves this way if it comes down to it.

I guess in the end the Demos at least keeping the Senate is an OK outcome to me.

 

This is going to be an interesting election in the House. I would argue that after the upheaval in 94, what has kept the GOP in control of the House is the redistricting done after the 1990 Census. Republicans made some very shrewd deals with minorities, particularly in the South, so that we had more minority-majority districts, but also more districts where the GOP had an advantage. After the 2000 Census, the Dems are a little wiser and certainly less sure of Dem majority. I'm too lazy to look up the numbers right now, but I think in GA, it went from heavily Dem to heavily GOP during the 1990's and now it looks like the Dems will take some seats back. Even though we're seeing more minority candidates across all districts, most blacks in the South have a tough choice... you either make the difference for a white guy who will be in the majority or have districts drawn so that you are represented by a black Rep in the minority.

 

ummmm...you didn't get personal with me?? huh. i'd say proclaiming that because i don't agree with you means i don't care anything about minorities or the poor is pretty darn personal. "my" party....you get the drift...don't throw knives and then play innocent. in fact, you said you were calling me out on it...and threw in the always sweet "WTF" salutation.


batman -- sorry about the confusion..guess i misunderstood your point

 

Timing, you brought up an interesting point about "volunteerism" and "reading to kids". I remember for years I had to view public service announcements showing old Barbara Bush bouncing a black child on her lap and teaching the cute little kid to read. Meanwhile, husband George was trying to cut funds for early childhood education to give the typical Republican tax cuts to the rich. Such pr hypocrisy was hard to stomach.

Madmax and I had a discussion many threads ago about the relative pittance of private charity and volunteerism in comparison to the social welfare safety net. All the societies that have better infant mortalilty, literacy rates etc than our own have higher taxes and a bigger safety net.

This is true even though I believe that we have the highest rate of Christian church going in certainly the developed world. Many large denominations like the Catholic church, the Methodists and Episcopalian realize this and consistently lobby for social welfare expenditures, though they also enourage their members to visit the sick or the things Madmax does.

I'm not refering to Madmax, personally, though he tends to take things that way. The problem with the current volunteerism is that political conservativesa like the Politico preacher Pat Robertson have a political agenda. They have gained complete domination of such bodies as the Southern Baptist Convention and corrupted Christian volunteerism by turning into a supposed alternative alternative to the social safety net, thereby allowing for additional tax cuts for the campaign investing class.

This is a shame.

 

1. i have been pretty vocal of my criticism of pat robertson

2. being a christian and being a liberal are certainly not mutually exclusive...as a christian, i don't pretend to have all the answers on social policy. ultimately, i don't believe social policy was the real mission of Jesus Christ. I don't see Christ as a means to an end for some social objective.

3. glynch, i only take things personally when you say things like, "you're just another upper-middle class white christian." i find that to be quite demeaning. i took personally what timing said because he said he was "calling me out on it." and then proceeded to trample through the same rhetoric i hear all the time here, complete with the "your party" phrase.

 

43% of the tax cut going to the richest 1% is because that is the percentage of the total money going to them. They do not get a larger tax cut as a percentage of income than poor or middle class workers. Most poor people don't pay any taxes on their income. I think that there are some other countries out there that have the tax schemes that you liberals are looking for: Cuba, North Korea, the Peoples Republic of China.

 

Poor people don't pay any income taxes?

 

Correctomundo. They have some money taken out for socail security, but there is a minimum income level that you must reach before your income is taxed, IIRC.

 

Poor people don't pay any income taxes?

Super-poor people don't. If you make $10k-$20k, though, I believe you do. Personally, I consider borderline poverty to be poor, but that's just me. For single people, I believe you start paying at $5,000 in income barring non-standard deductions.

I believe everyone also pays SS / FICA taxes (~13%) which is obviously a much more significant burden on the poor than the middle and upper classes. This may actually fit into your tax refund, but I am under the impression that it doesn't, in which case the poor pay a very significant portion of their disposable income in taxes.

SS Taxes are the the taxes that people don't like to talk about when they complain about the progressive system, since they blow that whole theory up. If my math is right:

Supposed Tax Rates (2001):

$0 - $27k = 15%
$27k - $65k = 27.5%
$65k - 136k = 30.5%
$136k - $297k = 35.5%
$297k + = 39.1%

When you account for the 13% in net Social Security Taxes, your actual tax rates go to:

$0 - $27k = 28%
$27k - $65k = 41%
$65k - $80k = 43%
$80 - 136k = 30.5%
$136k - $297k = 35.5%
$297k + = 39.1%

Not so progressive anymore.

 

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2001/february/rwt_defense_wealth.htm
Bush's plan would cut taxes for everyone and cuts them most for the poor; married people filing jointly, for example, could make almost $25,000 a year and pay zero income taxes.

Please post a source to confirm this claim.

 

No worries, Max. I wasn't altogether clear. Honest mistake.

 

This was posted earlier. Not sure of the accuracy:

A study released last year by the Congressional Budget Office reveals that the middle one-fifth of taxpayers, with an average income of $39,100, pay just 5.4 percent of their earnings in federal income taxes. The poorest third of wage-earners pay no income taxes at all.

 

Certainly... I agree, though we obviously disagree with the nature of Christ's paternity.

At some point, in my 'learn stuff about religion' mode I think we should all discuss the liberal/fundamentalist split in Christianity. I'd like to learn more about what some refer to as the 'pacifist' branch of Christianity, and how religion shapes politics, as well as how people's political views shape the way they view God. But I guess that's on the "to do" list, since I have to get back to work.

ps, Trader Jorge... you're a putz. You have no ****ing clue as to who I am or what I have done in my life, or what my perspectives might be. Go **** yourself until you want to engage in meaningful debate. When you call me a 'rookie' or ask me to 'get a clue', my eyes glaze over. I don't read the rest of your posts.

Since I actually have the ability to learn things from people that I might initially disagree with, that's a pity.

until next time when more political bs divides and conquers! bwaahhhehahahahabwwwahhhahahaha

 

Too much blaming going on here. Madmax is too conservative for me, but I also think he's a conscientious, decent-seeming individual. I think we evaluate other posters too often on what they're saying, and too seldom on how they arrive at their conclusions.

Incidentally, I think the economic debate is entirely too caught up in the ideology of entitlements. Society justifies taxes on the basis of the social contract. You pay your taxes in, you get your services out. We're used to thinking of services in an explicit, tangible sense: police, firemen, medicare, etc. But the justification also holds in the abstract: those who are able to best take advantage of and access our economic system, owe the most in terms of supporting the system itself. He who derives the most benefit, pays more in the way of upkeep.

There are no Fundamental Laws of Equitable Tax Distribution. It's all a matter of practical decision-making. What re-distribution system best ensures a minimum adequate standard of living for all, while still encouraging elites to engage in investments and entrepreneurship? Obviously, you don't want a situation like in the Soviet Union where all incentive for economic expansion is gone.

 

i do appreciate the kind words...i really do.

but too convervative for what? to earn your vote if i were running? to earn your friendship? what?

i find your ideas to be different than mine...but i've certainly learned from them.

 

YUCK!!! We can start with semantics. For God's sake, stop calling it a re-distribution system. It makes me want to puke. It makes me think you WANT to incentivize unproductive behavior.

It makes me feel so much better when you use pretty, soothing things like "He who derives the most benefit, pays more in the way of upkeep. "

 

MadMax:

Too conservative to vote for, I suppose... I certainly have friends with whom I disagree. I roomed with a libertarian finance major for 2 years. He thought that welfare should be abolished entirely... including programs such as school lunch.

We had some interesteing late night bull sessions...

Pole:

It seems like my posts summon you...

Make it plain or not, there isn't anything akin to the laws of physics concerning whether taxes should be flat or not.

There's a real human cost to flattening the tax bracket. The human cost is far less when you tax the wealthy more. It seems a simple enough matter, especially when there isn't a level playing field to begin with.

And as for providing incentives for unproductive behavior... how is that? Nobody here (as far as I know) supports raising lazy bums to middle class status. I'm just against letting them starve. And I'm all for attempting to provide their children with the tools necessarsy to succeed. If people making excess of $200,000 (random figure) a year have to pay the additional costs... well, I can live with that. It simply doesn't affect their standard of living to the same extent as people doing less well.

And there is the added justification that they're profiting most by the system. Mock if you want... but some do derive more benefit from our wondrously efficient capitalist system than others.

 

Actually, I wasn't trying to be rude....although I'm the first to admit that it's not always easy to tell with me.

I've mellowed in my stance on this subject in recent years. And strangely, it's now that I'm actually making a pretty decent living that I don't mind sharing a larger burden......though I'm not crazy about how social welfare works. I don't want to see anyone starve either, but I wouldn't be opposed to seeing people a little hungry. Basically, I want to feel that whatever programs are out there incentivize people to strive for something better. Now, I know a bunch of you will jump in to say that they do. Let's just agree to disagree on that right now.

Where I'd really like to see the majority of my social welfare tax dollars go is education. Three times more than what we're spending now would not be enough. To me, there's no better investment in the future.

 

Let me say for the record I certainly don't believe in abolishing all welfare!!! Welfare reform is not my big issue...in fact there is MUCH of it I support. I think if you met me you'd be pretty surprised in that regard.