10 Steps to Defeat Boehner

[lostfan]

It's boggling you don't see how arrogant this is. Just who the hell do you think you are to decide what is essential to someone.

That isn't really the point I was making and bmags already called me out on it. It had nothing to do with arrogance or even taxes.

 

If you don't pay your rent/mortgage you go live in the street.

If you don't pay your utilities there's not much point in having a house, either.

If you can't afford groceries, you die.

If you don't pay your car note you can't get to work unless you live somewhere with well-developed public transportation (which taxes are paid for)

 

After that everything really just depends. The stuff I listed first absolutely has to be paid, all the time. The other things are what people voluntarily add to their budget and are not essential. If someone doesn't know this (exception being savings), they will always be broke and/or living paycheck to paycheck no matter how much money they make unless they're filthy rich and it doesn't matter. They can blame taxes but that's just blaming the sniffles for their cold.

Edited November 5, 2010 by lostfan

[Soxbadger]

Yes, the over-the-topness is for reaction sake. But how many members of Obama's admin and the house and senate were found to have not paid taxes over the last 2 years? And not because they had massive deductions, but because they 'forgot', or because they outright lied to the IRS? There was a stretch there where every damn appointment he made owed back taxes. Kerry gets caught trying to duck taxes on his damn boat, but the taxes are good enough for the average mand to pay. My statements referred to the politicians, ALL of whom like to spend other peoples money, some more than others, to make themselves feel better. But lately, the ones not wanting to also pay thier share have had a D after their name.

 

Its not a politician problem, its an upper class problem. The reason there are accountants, tax attorneys etc is to try and bend the tax code in the most favorable way to the client. The people who have access to this type of bending are generally those who can pay the most for it.

 

In your own statement you basically admit that its a problem for both parties. Yet previously you try and paint it as a "Democrat" issue.

 

That being said, I think there should be a rule that you can not run for govt office or be employed by the govt if you owe back taxes.

 

The problem is that the people with the most power and who can actually change things, get benefits from the way the current system runs.

[Jenksismyhero]

The wealthy are the ones in charge and rig the system for their own benefit. This is not shocking, and this applies to just about all politicians everywhere.

 

You say this, but in the national debate (and here) it's the evil white rich Republicans, not those bleeding heart liberals that are just fighting their asses off for the little guy.

[Cknolls]

Yep Democrats give away other peoples money.

 

There are no Democrats that pay taxes, there are no Democrats in the highest tax bracket.

 

I know you werent joking, but I am truly saddened that you can believe something that is so unbelievably false. Im pretty sure on this board I ran some numbers and showed that Democratic states pay a larger percentage of taxes than Republican states, and thus Democrats end up giving away their money to pay for Republicans.

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

 

For example, in 2005 the Democratic state of Illinois paid more taxes to the Federal Govt than it received (99,776 >80,778). Other states that paid more than they received, California, NY.

 

Now lets look at some Republican states, South Carolina received more than it paid, TN received more than it paid, VA received more than it paid, Mississippi received more than it paid.

 

It seems to me that there is absolutely no facts to support the idea that Democrat's give other peoples money away, when the facts show that Republican's are the ones who receive more govt hand outs than they pay for.

 

Kind of a peculiar fact. NV is the only "Republican" state who actually pays more to the govt than they receive, yet its the Democrats who are "getting a free ride". Gimme a break.

 

I actually would find it hilarious if they got rid of most federal taxes, because half of those Republican states would lose tens of millions of dollars in funds that come from Democrat states.

 

 

What states received the most stimulus money to keep public employees employed? What states are going to get bailed out by the Feds for pension give aways? What states have received the largest subsidies from Build America Bonds? I can assure you TN, MS,and VA, will not show up on the top 5 maybe even top ten. CA, IL, NY, NJ are broke. Who do you think is going to end up footing the bill?

[Balta1701]

What states received the most stimulus money to keep public employees employed? What states are going to get bailed out by the Feds for pension give aways? What states have received the largest subsidies from Build America Bonds? I can assure you TN, MS,and VA, will not show up on the top 5 maybe even top ten. CA, IL, NY, NJ are broke. Who do you think is going to end up footing the bill?

Of course they're not going to shwo up in the top 10 (although Alaska probably does)...because there aren't as many people there!

 

They very well could show up there if you looked at per capita numbers.

[Soxbadger]

What states received the most stimulus money to keep public employees employed? What states are going to get bailed out by the Feds for pension give aways? What states have received the largest subsidies from Build America Bonds? I can assure you TN, MS,and VA, will not show up on the top 5 maybe even top ten. CA, IL, NY, NJ are broke. Who do you think is going to end up footing the bill?

 

Well those numbers only go through 2005, but even if NY, CA and IL for 1 year received more money than they gave out, it doesnt change the fact for the previous 20 years they gave more than they received. Furthermore, the largest states are going to get the most money. But that is not what the argument was. It was what states receive more money than they give to the federal govt.

 

Who will foot the bill? My guess is the same states that have historically had to pay for the other states: CA, NY and IL

 

In 2005 CA, NY and IL donated to other states (in millions): 19,000 from IL, 47,000 from CA and 24,000 from NY.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

What states received the most stimulus money to keep public employees employed? What states are going to get bailed out by the Feds for pension give aways? What states have received the largest subsidies from Build America Bonds? I can assure you TN, MS,and VA, will not show up on the top 5 maybe even top ten. CA, IL, NY, NJ are broke. Who do you think is going to end up footing the bill?

 

Texas will though!

[knightni]

Haha, you said, "Boehner."

[Cknolls]

Well those numbers only go through 2005, but even if NY, CA and IL for 1 year received more money than they gave out, it doesnt change the fact for the previous 20 years they gave more than they received. Furthermore, the largest states are going to get the most money. But that is not what the argument was. It was what states receive more money than they give to the federal govt.

 

Who will foot the bill? My guess is the same states that have historically had to pay for the other states: CA, NY and IL

 

In 2005 CA, NY and IL donated to other states (in millions): 19,000 from IL, 47,000 from CA and 24,000 from NY.

 

 

So you think IL,CA NY are going to pay for their own debts? LMAO!!!!! The gov't portion of the BAB's is multiple billions. And that is for just the past, what 18 months at most. So I beg to differ with who will turn out the big losers here.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

So you think IL,CA NY are going to pay for their own debts? LMAO!!!!! The gov't portion of the BAB's is multiple billions. And that is for just the past, what 18 months at most. So I beg to differ with who will turn out the big losers here.

 

The BAB bonds to California since inception would account for less than half of the additional amount that California taxpayers paid into the system in 2005.

[Soxbadger]

So you think IL,CA NY are going to pay for their own debts? LMAO!!!!! The gov't portion of the BAB's is multiple billions. And that is for just the past, what 18 months at most. So I beg to differ with who will turn out the big losers here.

 

Are you even looking at the numbers?

 

Because its obvious you are simply ignoring the truth.

[caulfield12]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07kristof.html?hp

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07sun1.html?hp

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07rich.html?hp

[Balta1701]

3 columnist links with no idea what's in any of them? Come on, at least give me an excerpt so i can decide if it's worth my time to click on them. The odds of me seeing "Kristof" and clicking on it are kinda low.

[caulfield12]

They're all about the same issue....how will it be possible to cut the deficit while simultaneously lowering taxes and NOT severing defense or entitlements.

[lostfan]

In two words: It's not

[EvilMonkey]

How about lowering it without RAISING taxes. That's all I want. Stop raising them, stop spending.

[BigSqwert]

How about lowering it without RAISING taxes. That's all I want. Stop raising them, stop spending.

We should even think about cutting back on the biggest welfare program on the planet known as the military industrial complex.

[StrangeSox]

We should even think about cutting back on the biggest welfare program on the planet known as the military industrial complex.

[NorthSideSox72]

I like Ike!!!

 

[Y2HH]

I'm sick and tired of the more taxes vs less taxes debate in this country, it's misguided at best, and if anyone took the time to open their eyes, they'd see how blind it really is. These "Bush Era" tax cuts are all we hear about now, they're expiring, the government needs more money, etc. In reality, taxes never really went down, they just shifted around, only nobody seems to notice...or care.

 

Meanwhile...

 

Liquor taxes went up.

 

Restaurant taxes went up.

 

Soda taxes went up.

 

Water taxes went up.

 

Sales taxes increased across the board, whether you buy a candy bar or a Ferrari.

 

Special entertainment taxes were added to your cable, phone and internet bills, most of which nobody can really explain since they seem like completely arbitrary values.

 

If you own a house, property taxes went up.

 

If you're a healthy eater, don't forget to increase taxes at your local product market, because they sure didn't!

 

You're city stickers/license plate stickers increased in price -- significantly.

 

The cost of work/building permits increased.

 

Bottom line...

 

These tax cuts have been and are a load of garbage, they just moved them from a national level to a local level, and neither are better off. Despite the nickle and dime increases on everything from bread to water, across the board, they're still increasing the state/local deficits, and it's not slowing down.

 

Bush era tax cuts. Meh. Great, I take a little bit more home every check, only I spend that much more one ever single little thing I buy.

[Balta1701]

Ignoring the partisan-insult headline here, the graphical data I think makes the point quite effectively that you guys are missing the mark. These are job gains in the last 12 months. Government spending IS being cut. Government jobs are being cut quite rapidly.

[Y2HH]

Ignoring the partisan-insult headline here, the graphical data I think makes the point quite effectively that you guys are missing the mark. These are job gains in the last 12 months. Government spending IS being cut. Government jobs are being cut quite rapidly.

 

Isn't quite a bit of that from the temporary Census jobs being gone?

 

I haven't looked much into it, but what I can do is look around. Hasn't government (public) compensation eclipsed private sector compensation? I didn't have time to research this, so it could be a bunch of BS, but if it has, that right there is a red flag IMO. When I get more time I'll have to check deeper into that.

[Balta1701]

Isn't quite a bit of that from the temporary Census jobs being gone?

 

I haven't looked much into it, but what I can do is look around. Hasn't government (public) compensation eclipsed private sector compensation? I didn't have time to research this, so it could be a bunch of BS, but if it has, that right there is a red flag IMO. When I get more time I'll have to check deeper into that.

No, because the census jobs were also hired this year. They're a zero sum game over the course of this year.

 

Total public sector compensation has not come anywhere close to eclipsing private sector compensation in this country (it has done so in some of the Scandinavian countries I believe). There's a very poor comparison out there saying that public sector jobs on average pay better than private sector jobs...which is mostly true, but it's mostly true because the type of jobs available in the public sector are generally higher-educated, higher-paying jobs than the private sector (there's no government version of WalMart or McDonalds creating enormous numbers of minimum wage, no benefit, public sector jobs).

[Y2HH]

No, because the census jobs were also hired this year. They're a zero sum game over the course of this year.

 

Total public sector compensation has not come anywhere close to eclipsing private sector compensation in this country (it has done so in some of the Scandinavian countries I believe). There's a very poor comparison out there saying that public sector jobs on average pay better than private sector jobs...which is mostly true, but it's mostly true because the type of jobs available in the public sector are generally higher-educated, higher-paying jobs than the private sector (there's no government version of WalMart or McDonalds creating enormous numbers of minimum wage, no benefit, public sector jobs).

 

Sure there is, those people who act like police that direct traffic very poorly all around Chicago!

[lostfan]

Isn't quite a bit of that from the temporary Census jobs being gone?

 

I haven't looked much into it, but what I can do is look around. Hasn't government (public) compensation eclipsed private sector compensation? I didn't have time to research this, so it could be a bunch of BS, but if it has, that right there is a red flag IMO. When I get more time I'll have to check deeper into that.

I don't know where Balta got that graph but state governments have been cutting the everloving s*** out of payroll to the point where there's not much left that can be cut.