Done with the Democatic Party

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Yes, I'm aware I'm apparently too incompetent to not double post in my own goddamn thread. Sorry about that.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
You got me, you are right. Max, not min. I think they stop taking Social Security money from you at $80K. They should change that to $110K (per my accountant).

Depends on what level of spending that is. It's about twice the median income here so that should be the richer part of the middle clas. So that should be okay.

Still one thing needs to be there though: healthcare. Because health insurance is far more expensive in the US and doesn't cover a lot, you can expect the average person's medical costs to be much higher. Cutting off all services would create a gap between income groups where they're not rich enough to pay the bills themselves, but not poor enough to rely on the government to finance the necessary medical care.

Not to mention he wants to get rid of that medical care completely in the first place, so that 'gap' would just be a chasm.

Blablahb:
It's an issue that's too important (and damaging to society if done wrong) to leave any gaps in.

Gorfias:
I have read that things were so bad in 2008, for the first time, it went in the red, something actuarially it wasn't supposed to do for a few more years.

That can't be right? I mean, the US budget had a major deficit under Bush too. And before that. Late in Clinton's administration it came close to a balance according to this graph.

But in principle, there's nothing new under the sun about the US budget, while social spending does exactly what it can be expected to do with the aging of the population and the worsening of various problems caused by underspending on government services.

I mean, to name an example, the lax food regulations in the US is a direct contributors to the obesity epidemic, and that costs hundreds of billions directly and indirectly. Small government back then means more healthcare spending now.

Gorfias:
That raises some of the biggest arguments of our time. Some argue that big government is what is causing social destruction. But, on topic, do you think the left should give up on the Democratic party? More specifically, do you think the Democratic won, lost, or other regarding this latest fiscal cliff thing? As a right winger, I think the whole thing is a joke, and the left has largely won the country.

I've never heard of any decent argument about that 'big guvernment' stuff though. It usually remains rather vague, or hinges on assumptions that aren't true, like 'without government healthcare, people would finance their own' to paraphrase someone here. While the whole problem is those people can't. So I can't really take that one seriously. Through my study on the other hand I've seen many examples of problems that were caused by small government conservatism in the US.

We constantly hear shit about how we shouldn't rely on government for health care because businesses will provide good care to 'compete' in the market or some shit. Then you get people like Papa John's CEO cutting people's hours to avoid paying for health care so he can live in a mansion.

I'm tired of rewarding people for shit they have potential to do good even when they don't. They want us to worship the rich as providing health care and jobs, but when they don't provide health care or acceptable wages, it's improper to punish them (or at the very least, to even consider stop rewarding them with tax breaks).

You wouldn't give a child more cake because he has 'potential' to eat broccoli, and when he refuses to, give him an extra helping of cake to coax him on.

People 'financing their own' health care requires businesses to not pay bullshit wages and to not cut hours to avoid that. They're incapable or unwilling to do that. So either they need to be forced to do that (or at the very least, stopped being rewarded despite failing to do it), or somebody else has to take the slack. But they're unwilling to make the rich pay their fair share, so we have a debt.

Blablahb:
Two good examples:

-spatial planning. Spatial planning in the US is mostly free market driven and heavily aimed at facilitating that, and not at restrictions. Want to build a low-density gated community suburb? We'll let you. But that has created vast dependency on cars, meaning fuel dependency for the US as a whole, more traffic accidents etc. Basically letting the builders and project developers make money as they desired, created new problems that show now. There's whole books written on the problems caused by US spatial planning, so I can't go too deeply into that.

Yeah, we privatized the rewards of that land use, and subsidized all the costs. Then congratulated the rich on building so much wealth. It's easy as shit for the wealthy to create wealth when nobody fucking makes you pay for the shit you use or the problems you create.

Blablahb:
-Lack of market regulations. Because of the gap between rich and poor and because you used to be allowed to discriminate against people (redlining in mortgages f.e.) it has helped create ghettos. To put the connection between the issues very shortly, the free market created ghettos, ghettos create problems, and the taxpayer ends up paying for addressing those problems, like higher police spending because of more crime.

So basically, that's why I think it's not a good idea to go for more small government conservatism like the republicans want. History in the US has shown that you end up paying more for fewer value that way. Increasing spending in a time of a deficit may seem like a bad move at first glance, but if you look at the problems the US as a society is facing, I think that investment will more than pay off if made now.

That's the problem is that people are incapable of separating spending money and investing from losing money.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
You got me, you are right. Max, not min. I think they stop taking Social Security money from you at $80K. They should change that to $110K (per my accountant).

Depends on what level of spending that is. It's about twice the median income here so that should be the richer part of the middle clas. So that should be okay.

FICA taxes are 6.2% of the first $113,600 of wage income in 2013 and 0.0% for every dollar above that see my previous post for the past few years and for when it actually was $80,000. This is the social security tax Gorfias is talking about and it is highly regressive since as you being to earn more money you pay a lower and a lower effective rate .

It was 4.2% for the previous 2 years due a temporary stimulative measure taken by the Obama administration that was written to expire on Jan 1st this year. That it wasn't extended and allowed to expire as it was written is one reason why Damien is angry.

Yeah, basically. Everybody moans on about how we can't tax the middle class and how we ABSOLUTELY had to extend tax breaks for people making up to 420,000 a year, but apparently raising taxes on earners of less than 113,000 a year was completely fine.

If I had my way, I would had let absolutely 100% of all the tax breaks end. Including the payroll tax break.

But nope, instead I get a retarded ass Democratic party that lets tax breaks on the rich expire so they don't hurt the feelings of Republicans.

And I'm sorry, but if you make 400,000 dollars a year you're rich.

Damien Granz:
snipped

In regards to who is to blame for gridlock and the fiscal cliff debate

http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/15/frustration-with-congress-could-hurt-republican-incumbents/

Those numbers give a pretty good indication of what's going on.

I think you need to look at this recent debate we had on the fiscal cliff, can we call it a full win for Obama? Some say yes I'd say no, it was a compromise but guess what? It was within the realm of what should be called reason, you know who fought harder for that then anybody? John fucking Boehner and that is why everybody is fucking pissed at him. Now ignore his public posturing Mr. B did some serious negotiations trying to flip his insane caucus just a bit because he sees where there brick wall ideals are leading them. Straight out the back door of congress. Give it time this year will be a much better year for negotiations because the president found something that worked, getting the message out and now he knows how to do it. Don't expect miracles but at least expect something that can be considered compromise and honestly a bit of heavy fracturing in the GOP. And if congress can't get anything done again because of the GOP(and not spineless Dems) then that poll up there will once again reflect badly on the GOP and midterms will roll around dems will once again control both houses. And that is a very good position to be in, a recovering economy a president that will be leaving on a wave of adulation with a stacked congress. That is of course assuming the economy doesn't tank.

Ryotknife:

Damien Granz:
snip

the economy in NYS has been declining long before the recession hit, since early 2000's at least. Hell, the city of Buffalo has been declining for over 100 years! The state government has never lifted a finger to help it. In fact, everything they HAVE done has hurt buffalo and the rest of the state. The major companies in cities of Buffalo, Rochester (where the firefighters were killed), and I believe Syracuse (the Syracuse Orangemen if you follow basketball) were declining long before the recession hit.

Actually funny story. Most of NYS (in particular Buffalo) was actually LUCKY when it came to the housing collapse. Our economy was so bad to begin with that when the housing market collapsed....nothing happened. If anything things seem to got a little bit better when the recession hit for a little while.

Why? because the local democrats dont care about NYS, all they care about is New York City. Why is that? Because the city is overwhelmingly democratic. So long as they secure NYC, their job is secured. NYC also funnels money from the rest of the state to themselves, they get an overwhelming amount of money, far more than they put it from places that can barely support themselves as it is. If NYC became its own state they would be bankrupt within the year. While its true that republicans only care about republicans, democrats only care about democrats as well. Both sides paint a pretty picture of themselves, but in my eyes they are both dishonest self serving A holes at the politician level.

In Western NY, we have the Niagara Falls hydro plant and a Nuclear power plant (we actually have quite a few nuclear power plants in the state, which are kinda rare in our country). Lots of cheap electricity. Guess what? We have one of the highest electric rates IN THE COUNTRY. Only Hawaii I believe has more expensive electricity. But NYC electricity is signifcantly cheaper. Why? Because all of that "cheap" power goes to NYC, not to the local areas.

NYS gets taxed to hell, extremely anti-business, one of the highest fuel/utility rates in the country (despite our abundance of some of those resources), and with little to nothing to show for it. The only positive thing i can say about NYS is that we dont (usually) have any natural disasters compared to just about anywhere else in the country, and our food is pretty darn good. If the rest of the country became like NYS, honestly I would leave the US. And yes, I blame the democrats for how the state is. They solely ran the state into the ground, no one else is to blame, and im not one to usually point a finger solely at X president or Y party. In fact I like Obama compared to Bush. Overall i would say that Obame is a "meh" president.

I am not really against socialism as a concept (lets just say i have an open mind to it), but it has to be done right. Our government is so inept and incompetent (at the middle/top levels) that any socialist reform is going to backfire like a mother effer and make things so much worse.

Another funny story. I spent a year down in the State of Alabama for work, dealing mostly with dams. In the past, a portion of their budget would go towards "dredging" the river (essentially carving a channel in the river so it is deep enough for transport boats to use. The rivers have a lot of soot). However, recently the government decided to use that money instead to make parks....even though most of the state is freakin wilderness, people own so much cheap land that each house basically IS a park, and these parks are built in places where there are barely any people around for 100 miles. Then they act all surprised when the transports stop coming down the river and using the locks and wonder why their budget keeps getting smaller and smaller as the state has less and less money to use. And this is technically at the federal level, not even at the state level.

Final Note: although it is true that the republicans went crazy first with the "victory or death" mentality, the Democrats seem to have adopted it as well. Just look at this recent fiscal event. the Repubs were much more reasonable this time around than last year when they were obstinate sons of Bs. While the Democrats were very reasonable in 2011, they are significantly less so now. It would be nice if both parties went through their obstinite phase at the same time rather than staggering them....

I'm pretty sure that NYC sends more money to the FEDs and Albany than we get back. In fact, I'd say we'd be better off w/o the upstaters.

http://westchesterrealestateinformation.com/report-n-y-c-suburbs-send-more-tax-money-upstate-than-they-get-back/

So screw you for saying we're freeloaders when its more true the other way around.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:

That [is big or small government socially destructive] raises some of the biggest arguments of our time.

Two good examples:

-spatial planning. Spatial planning in the US is mostly free market driven and heavily aimed at facilitating that, and not at restrictions.

Allowing the elite to make giant mansions for themsevles in mutliple states, while cattle penning the rest of us in giant mega cities scares the Heck out of me. But I have to agree with you on this one to some extent. Something needs to be done about sprawl. It's nuts for people to be spending litterally 6 hours commuting, spending fuel, from far away places to get to and from work.

Damien Granz:

You write this as if the Republican party was entitled to some concession from an automatically expiring tax break. So you're upset that you didn't get better concessions? That's a fucking joke.

You write this as if the Republican party had no cards to play that Democrats needed to respect. I think the Republicans told the Democrats, "sure, let us go over the cliff. Taxes will go up in these high unemployment times and we'll lay 100% of the blame on you and the Democrats because, well, you are in charge. You try to do things 100% your way, we can obstruct you.

The Conservative movement, for rank and file like me, is dead. This deal sucked. But the establishment Republicans
do still have some power and you have to respect that (OMG, it is as if I'm arguing on the side of the Democrats).

Personally, I wanted the government to go over the fiscal cliff. There are those on the left calling the deal a bad one.

[qoute] If you didn't get a better deal out of it, it's because Republicans literally brought jack shit to the table [/quote]

I think it less a bad deal than a joke. What the Hell were we, the people, supposed to be so worked up about? I've heard it argued that Congress spent 2 months figuring out how to fix 10 minutes of the problem.

The only Republican to go nuts that I know of is Charles Krauthammer. He wrote something to the effect that Obama is showing his colors: more revenue, more not less, spending. He did win the election.

But if Chuck is pissed, I'd think you'd be happy.

Gorfias:

The only Republican to go nuts that I know of is Charles Krauthammer. He wrote something to the effect that Obama is showing his colors: more revenue, more not less, spending. He did win the election.

But if Chuck is pissed, I'd think you'd be happy.

I'm not happy that you're unhappy you didn't get more concessions out of a deal you had no say in. You being unhappy is to be expected. That's what losing an election is called, in general.

Laying the blame on us for tax increases is fine because that's what Obama campaigned on and won an election on. But what did we get instead? We got rich people at 420,000 getting a tax break and people making under 113,000 a year getting a tax increase. We basically got exactly what Republicans wanted. Don't believe me? Republicans had been masturbating furiously at the idea that you could get payroll taxes increased ever since their bullshit lie about how 43% don't pay taxes period. They wanted the lower and middle class's taxes to go up. And they got it, with giving up half the rich's tax cuts. They 'gave up' something they never had, to win a compromise. That makes the other guys, Democrats, really shitty negotiators.

Gorfias:
Going from $80K to $110K (or $250K) would raise revenues for this program. I am not against that.

That still wouldn't affect the really wealthy, though, would it, unless I'm misunderstanding the concept? This is still incredibly regressive, especially considering it's the lower and middle classes that pump money into the economy as they earn it. You lose out on a lot of economic power this way and stall trade.

Skeleon:

Gorfias:
Going from $80K to $110K (or $250K) would raise revenues for this program. I am not against that.

That still wouldn't affect the really wealthy, though, would it, unless I'm misunderstanding the concept? This is still incredibly regressive, especially considering it's the lower and middle classes that pump money into the economy as they earn it. You lose out on a lot of economic power this way and stall trade.

If prices equilibrate, at least the wealthiest among us would have to pla their current $110 K earners more to make up for the extra loss to government revenues. If.

It would be nice to bring in extra revenue for a program that needs it from the source that is supposed to be paying it. Social Security does not appear to be a progressive tax though. Its more a planning thing and people relying upon it are not ensuring it is funded. Its funds were mixed with the general fund and spent during the 1960s. At that time SS was running a huge surplus so people didn't really notice or complain. It isn't anymore and we have to make changes to accommodate that fact. (A Buddy wants to punish those that put it in the general funds. Reminds me of "Silver Linings Playbook" where the guy wants an apology from Ernst Hemmingway. Yeah, dig up Lyndon Johnson and tell him off!

Skeleon:

Gorfias:
Going from $80K to $110K (or $250K) would raise revenues for this program. I am not against that.

That still wouldn't affect the really wealthy, though, would it, unless I'm misunderstanding the concept? This is still incredibly regressive, especially considering it's the lower and middle classes that pump money into the economy as they earn it. You lose out on a lot of economic power this way and stall trade.

Honestly it is regressive as hell. I'd be all for the ceiling lifted entirely. If you get income, you pay FICA, period. I don't like this shit where you get 'too rich to tax'.

Damien Granz:

Skeleon:

Gorfias:
Going from $80K to $110K (or $250K) would raise revenues for this program. I am not against that.

That still wouldn't affect the really wealthy, though, would it, unless I'm misunderstanding the concept? This is still incredibly regressive, especially considering it's the lower and middle classes that pump money into the economy as they earn it. You lose out on a lot of economic power this way and stall trade.

Honestly it is regressive as hell. I'd be all for the ceiling lifted entirely. If you get income, you pay FICA, period. I don't like this shit where you get 'too rich to tax'.

I'm not against that either. The thinking isn't you are too rich to tax. It is that you are too rich to ever need social security. It is built on a number of hypocracies.
1) Social Security was to be a voluntary option for those that wanted it.
2) It wasn't a charity: it is a paid for "supplement" to your already planned for retirement income.
3) The program pays for itself.

None of this is true. It could have been. At times, it was. But it isn't anymore. If we view it as simply a necessary system to provide for the older members or our society, it becomes just another program that needs to be paid for, which everyone, even the richest among us, should be shouldering their fair share.

Gorfias:

Damien Granz:

Skeleon:

That still wouldn't affect the really wealthy, though, would it, unless I'm misunderstanding the concept? This is still incredibly regressive, especially considering it's the lower and middle classes that pump money into the economy as they earn it. You lose out on a lot of economic power this way and stall trade.

Honestly it is regressive as hell. I'd be all for the ceiling lifted entirely. If you get income, you pay FICA, period. I don't like this shit where you get 'too rich to tax'.

I'm not against that either. The thinking isn't you are too rich to tax. It is that you are too rich to ever need social security. It is built on a number of hypocracies.
1) Social Security was to be a voluntary option for those that wanted it.
2) It wasn't a charity: it is a paid for "supplement" to your already planned for retirement income.
3) The program pays for itself.

None of this is true. It could have been. At times, it was. But it isn't anymore. If we view it as simply a necessary system to provide for the older members or our society, it becomes just another program that needs to be paid for, which everyone, even the richest among us, should be shouldering their fair share.

I figure you'd be all for the rich not paying their fair share into the system so they could 'create jobs' or whatever it is Republicans say they think happens to a pile of money on the cayman islands.

I guess I'm pleasantly surprised?

Damien Granz:

I figure you'd be all for the rich not paying their fair share into the system so they could 'create jobs' or whatever it is Republicans say they think happens to a pile of money on the cayman islands.

I guess I'm pleasantly surprised?

I think that punitive and confiscatory tax rates stifle the economic engine. But when I hear of billionaires paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than do their own secretary, we should all smell a rat.

You can argue that those lower rates are to help in "job creation" but in the age of subsidized out sourcing, I'm not sold. I don't think anyone should be.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked