General > Politics

What is a Democrat/Republican

<< < (5/8) > >>

CraigStern:

--- Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 01:37:21 PM ---
--- Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 12:40:20 PM ---yes, as much as you probably didn't want to hear it, here it is--cut taxes on the wealthy.
--- End quote ---
Republicans want to cut taxes for everyone--not just the wealthy.
--- End quote ---

I thought that too, but I have a hard time reconciling that with this latest move.


--- Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 01:37:21 PM ---Democrats think people are "entitled" to benefits, while Republicans think people should earn things themselves.
--- End quote ---

That's not entirely accurate. Both parties believe that people should work and earn a living and contribute to society. And there are plenty of benefits that both parties believe people are entitled to. (For instance: police and fire protection, public schools, roads and ambulance services, just to name a few examples.) The only real difference between the parties here is that Democrats include some things that Republicans do not, such as access to medical treatment and a safety net for bad economic times.


--- Quote from: sarlok on August 23, 2011, 03:53:06 PM ---Deagonx, there is a bracketed tax rate currently in the US.  Basically, the more you make, the more your tax percentage is; so it increases not only just the dollar amount but also the rate as you earn more money.  There are currently 6 different tax rate brackets.
--- End quote ---

One thing worth mentioning: people do not belong to tax brackets, income does.

SmartyPants:

--- Quote from: sarlok on August 23, 2011, 03:07:15 PM ---Democrats want to spend money on social programs.
Republicans want to spend money on the military.
--- End quote ---
You are over generalizing.  There are numerous Democrats who want more military spending and many Republicans (including most of the Republican presidential candidates) who have been describe as "isolationist" because they want to shrink the size of the military and want to stop America from acting as the world's police.


--- Quote from: sarlok on August 23, 2011, 03:07:15 PM ---If you really think that either party wants to enact all the things they use as divisive issues, look at the past ten years.  During that time both parties have had a chance at control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency together.  Did the republicans drastically reduce spending?  No, it increased.  Did the democrats increase taxes like they talk about now?  No, they continued several tax breaks and started new ones.  Think about that for a minute; where are the big changes each party is constantly crowing about when they had the chance?
--- End quote ---
You are over simplifying things.  First, Bush only had 51 Republicans in the Senate, so he couldn't do anything drastically partisan like Obama did with his 60 Democrat supermajority in the healthcare debate.  Also, the increased spending has less to do with costly entitlement programs, and more to do with the extra cost of the War on Terror.  The continuation of the Tax Breaks was not Obama's choice, but it was a compromise forced on him by the Republican controlled house.


--- Quote from: sarlok on August 23, 2011, 03:07:15 PM ---This country was built by men with differing political opinions, but I think that we have gotten so used to every issue "only" having two sides that we are more worried about defining what drives us apart (democrat/republican) than we are worried about coming together in compromise as our founding fathers did to actually solve this country's problems.
--- End quote ---
I don't understand how people got the idea that recently Democrats and Republicans aren't compromising.  Yes, there was major partisanship when Obama had control of the House and had a supermajority in the Senate, because he didn't want or have to listen to Republicans, but things are different after Republicans won control of the House and many votes in the Senate.  Lets look at the debt cycling debate for example:  Obama wanted the debt cycling raised without anything in return like all of his predecessors, but Tea Party Republicans said they will only raise the debt cycling if the deficit is decreased.  The Republicans plan was to reduce spending by $4 trillion, while the Democrats plan was to reduce spending by $2 trillion and increase taxes by $2 trillion .  The compromise was to cut the $2 trillion that both sides agreed on. 


--- Quote from: sarlok on August 23, 2011, 03:53:06 PM ---However, there are also a bunch of deductions and exemptions that you can take, and wealthy people are in a better position to take advantage of some of those (for example, there is a mortgage interest and property tax deduction - you don't get either if you don't own your house).
--- End quote ---
I don't know what you are talking about when you imply that only the rich are able to take advantage of the deductions and exemptions.  Because all the numerous deductions and exemptions, nearly half of american households don't pay any income taxes.  Also, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of federal income taxes.  I don't understand how people who don't contribute any tax dollars to the ferderal budget could say that the rich, who lose a huge percetage of thier income to taxes, don't pay thier "fair share".


--- Quote from: sarlok on August 23, 2011, 03:53:06 PM ---Also, long term capital gains are taxed at only 15%, which is equivalent to the second-lowest income tax bracket (those making $8376-$34000 when single for 2010).  So, most wealthy people will earn money in the financial markets, which is largely through capital gains.  As long as they hold onto the stocks long enough to make it a long term capital gain, the tax rate is lower than most middle-class tax rates.
--- End quote ---
You completely disregarded that many middle class households use capital gains to fund their retirement (401k).  There is also major risk to investing in stock market, so increasing taxes on capital gains would decrease investment and therefore hurt the economy.

Deagonx:

--- Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 07:21:25 PM ---
--- Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 01:37:21 PM ---
--- Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 12:40:20 PM ---yes, as much as you probably didn't want to hear it, here it is--cut taxes on the wealthy.
--- End quote ---
Republicans want to cut taxes for everyone--not just the wealthy.
--- End quote ---

I thought that too, but I have a hard time reconciling that with this latest move.


--- End quote ---

I don't think thats very fair to say Republicans want to raise taxes because they are doing it while we are in debt.

SmartyPants:

--- Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 07:21:25 PM ---
--- Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 01:37:21 PM ---
--- Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 12:40:20 PM ---yes, as much as you probably didn't want to hear it, here it is--cut taxes on the wealthy.
--- End quote ---
Republicans want to cut taxes for everyone--not just the wealthy.
--- End quote ---
I thought that too, but I have a hard time reconciling that with this latest move.
--- End quote ---
Obama claims the payroll tax will help the economy.  Obama only wants to cut the payroll tax for individuals which the money usually goes towards paying off thier debt which doesn't help the economy.  If the payroll tax went towards businesses, then the businesees could use the extra money to expand.  The reason that the payroll taxes need to stay is becuase payroll taxes go towards already underfunded Social Security and Medicare.  You can't remove revenue going towards the most costly parts of the US budget.


--- Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 07:21:25 PM ---
--- Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 01:37:21 PM ---Democrats think people are "entitled" to benefits, while Republicans think people should earn things themselves.
--- End quote ---
That's not entirely accurate. Both parties believe that people should work and earn a living and contribute to society. And there are plenty of benefits that both parties believe people are entitled to. (For instance: police and fire protection, public schools, roads and ambulance services, just to name a few examples.) The only real difference between the parties here is that Democrats include some things that Republicans do not, such as access to medical treatment and a safety net for bad economic times.
--- End quote ---
I wasn't talking about things individuals can't do themselves such as creating a national defence and building infrastructure.  When I said "entitled", I was referring towards entitlement programs such as unemployment, social security, and obamacare.  For example, Democrats believe the government should pay people who lose thier jobs until they get their job back, while Republicans beleive people should be responisble enough to have a savings to fall back on untill they find a new (possibly lower paying) job.

CraigStern:

--- Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 08:03:36 PM ---Obama claims the payroll tax will help the economy.  Obama only wants to cut the payroll tax for individuals which the money usually goes towards paying off thier debt which doesn't help the economy.  If the payroll tax went towards businesses, then the businesees could use the extra money to expand.  The reason that the payroll taxes need to stay is becuase payroll taxes go towards already underfunded Social Security and Medicare.  You can't remove revenue going towards the most costly parts of the US budget.
--- End quote ---

The Bush-era tax cuts don't target businesses either; but unlike the payroll tax cuts, they also don't target people who need more discretionary income! Aside from which, I simply cannot accept the argument that the country can afford a massive drop in tax revenue in order to keep tax cuts targeted toward the wealthy, but that simultaneously, it somehow cannot survive short-term tax cuts benefiting the working class. To ensure the solvency of Social Security, we should lift the payroll tax cap, not further burden working class families. That's just my opinion, of course.


--- Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 01:37:21 PM ---For example, Democrats believe the government should pay people who lose thier jobs until they get their job back, while Republicans beleive people should be responisble enough to have a savings to fall back on untill they find a new (possibly lower paying) job.
--- End quote ---

It isn't about being responsible versus being irresponsible. Living is expensive--unless you make a significant wage, building up savings to last you through months (or, potentially, years) of unemployment is virtually impossible. I hope you never have to find this out through personal experience.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version