The Sinister Design Forums

Could someone explain to me the basic beliefs of a Republican/Democrat?

No Bias please. Nothing in the form of "Republicans want to give tax breaks to the rich" or "Democrats want to kill babies" or something ignorant like that.

Actually, tax increase isn't, by itself, a bad thing. It helps pay for roads, public health, education, and nearly all of the basic functions that our government provides; saying that one group wants a tax increase would not necessarily be ignorant if it were correct. However, you seem not to like the idea from your comparison of the two possibilities.

Actually, when you think about it, neither is killing babies such a bad thing, as long as you cook them correctly. If you don't eat them afterwards, it's just barbaric and a waste.  :-*

Quote from: Duckling on July 29, 2011, 09:49:20 PM
Actually, tax increase isn't, by itself, a bad thing. It helps pay for roads, public health, education, and nearly all of the basic functions that our government provides; saying that one group wants a tax increase would not necessarily be ignorant if it were correct. However, you seem not to like the idea from your comparison of the two possibilities.

Actually, when you think about it, neither is killing babies such a bad thing, as long as you cook them correctly. If you don't eat them afterwards, it's just barbaric and a waste.  :-*

Well, I know that tax raising is not a bad thing. I just used examples of hate speech I hear a lot.

I agree that tax raising is a good thing. Why are people so reluctant to help their country? Lower taxes? Why not just sell us to China.

Second, thats awful.

Duckling, you ignored his question and went on spewing your political opinion.  Next time, try to stay on topic.

Quote from: Deagonx on July 29, 2011, 07:43:11 PMCould someone explain to me the basic beliefs of a Republican/Democrat?

This is a complex question, because not all Republicans and Democrats share the same beliefs as the rest of their party.  For example, some Democrats (Blue Dog) are more Pro-life and Pro-gun then many Republicans.  The main differences between the parties are what they believe the size and the role the government should be.  Democrats believe that the government is the answer to all problems, while Republicans see big government as inefficient, expensive, and limiting to individuals' choices.

Quote from: Deagonx on July 30, 2011, 12:42:52 AMI agree that tax raising is a good thing. Why are people so reluctant to help their country? Lower taxes? Why not just sell us to China.

One of the issues is that no one want thier own taxes raised.  They want to take someone else's money.  Because of our flawed tax code, 50% of Americans don't pay any taxes and many of those people collect checks from the government due to numerous write offs and tax deductions.  It seems wrong to me to take the money someone else earns.

Pardon me, sir, but it seems that you have accused me of "spewing." I shall have to address that in due course, and the topic will have to wait.

I merely was responding to an inferred mistake that took precedence over the question. It appears that Deagonx had not, in fact, made the mistake, and my inference was incorrect. I did not ignore his question. If you are curious as to why my adressal of the mistake I thought he had made took precedence over the question, I should be happy to explain.
Operating under the assumption that tax increases are purely bad would be a foolhardy one, indeed. If the entire discussion were to have continued using this premise, it might have had some more serious errors later on, requiring the challenging of an established premise. This, I have found to be quite difficult, whether the premise is true or false. Instead, I decided to correct the percieved error as it was stated.

My own political opinion came into the post at no point, and it has not in this post, either. I solely expressed a desire to correct a possible mistake. It is obviously a position held by all of us that taxation is necessary, and that, at times, it must be increased. Certainly, if it is decreased often, it must be increased equally regularly, or in greater increments. That stated, I bid you good day, and hope not to see further complaint from you.

Unfortunately, there also seem to be a number of subtly biased statements in your post. For the sake of the discussion at large, and such that this subtle bias is not mistakenly taken to be a part of the truths your sentences entail within them, I will point them out presently.

The first is your use of the term "Pro-life." The position "pro-life" is exclusively expressed as a negative position, encouraging greater regulation on abortion. If laws and regulation were removed, abortion would be a choice. Given an enactment of the views those who are "pro-life" suggest, there would be no such choice. Thus, "pro-life" is actually a "contra-" or "anti-" position. Also, the term contains the obvious engrained stigma against those who reject the idea. Those who are not "pro-life" are, by a simple reasoning, against life, a position which is surely an evil. This subtle wordplay can result in crowds shouting "Baby-killer!" when rational discussion should be taking place.

Since I understand that you hold a position in this delicate issue, I wish to assure you (like as not to no avail) that my concerns are not political in nature, but merely point out possible perceived bias, and I seek to eliminate such a bias when the purpose of this thread is that of seeking unbiased knowledge of the platforms of the two parties.

The second is your statement pertaining to the Democrats. It is an exaggeration phrased in such a way that the logical process of reductio ad absurdum is utilized as follows:
Democrats believe that the government is the answer to all problems.
Termites are a problem.
Therefore, Democrats believe that the government is the answer to termites.

I do not suggest that this is the intent, but merely would prefer that you used a more neutral phrasing as you did with the Republicans.

The third and final issue I wish to take with a section of your post is one pertaining to taxes. Tax evasion is highly illegal and since less than ten percent of the country is unemployed, the logical implication of your statement is that 40% of working Americans have willfully chosen not to report their income and not pay taxes. Homeownership in the United States is about two-thirds, meaning that if your statement is true, at least sixteen percent of Americans also don't pay property tax, meaning that our educational system (funded by property taxes) is only operating at five-sixths efficiency.

Forty percent is a very high prevalence rate, higher than ten percent. However, ten percent is approximately the prevalence rate of homosexuality (for example; it's a common trait that one sees and notices), and I can say that I know at least five people that are homosexual. Forty percent being four times ten percent, one should know nearly four times as many people who do not pay taxes. That said, it would appear to be a severe statistical anomaly that I know not one person that does not pay taxes. Do you? If so, I would advise you to report these people to the proper authorities for a crime that undermines the effectiveness and efficiency of our country.

However, I suggest an alternative possibility. Perhaps my observations are not statistical anomaly, and perhaps significantly more than one-half of Americans pay taxes. Perhaps some better sources for you are in order.

This is going downhill fast.

Locked.

Uh. Does Ert want to? I think DeagonX forgot. :/

First I like to say that "spewing" was a bad choice of words.  I was just pointing out that your view on taxes was off topic.

Also, I showed no bais due to me saying "Pro-life".  That is what they name their political position and not my personal opinion.  I see merit on both sides of the "Pro-life vs. Pro-choice" debate.  Until a condom breaks on me, I will probably won't have a strong opinion either way.  Since this is a women's issue, I don't feel, as a man, like I have the right to say what women can or can not do.  If I was put in a position where I had to choose a side, then I choose the side where the women in my life agree with it which would be "Pro-choice".

Maybe my statement, "Democrats believe that the government is the answer to all problems," does sounds exaggerated, but that that wasn't not because of bais.  I had made poor word choices in trying to define a complex topic into a few words.  Democrats usually believe that government is the solution to most major issues.  Is that better?

I never said anything about tax evasion, so please don't try to put words in my mouth.  Here is my source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns/business-personal_finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-tax/) about how half of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes.

Your comments about homosexuality seem to come out of no where.

Well, it's good that we have several issues cleared up, and that many of my inferences were mistaken.

First, I'll insist that my intent in my remark pertaining to taxes was merely to be informative, and I see no expression of view.

My remarks about homosexuality were not, indeed about homosexuality, and I was merely using a convenient statistic that correlates quite a bit with observed rate.

However, it was directed at your remark about income taxes. I apologize; I did not believe the statistic, as it sounded very much like those false statistics quoted by people who wish to simply play upon the fear of the general populace. That suspicion having been in error, I rescind my earlier comparison.

I could not tell what variety of tax you were referring to, so I thank you for eliminating that uncertainty. However, it seems that the taxpaying rate in America has been low for a while, without any major backlash that can be directly traced to said low taxpaying rate.

As such, it seems we are at an agreement for now, and inclarities have been resolved. Finally, I thank you, and bid you good day.

Quote from: bugfartboy on August 04, 2011, 09:24:15 PM
Uh. Does Ert want to? I think DeagonX forgot. :/

I believe that the topic starter can lock his own thread. (Of course that the other people that can lock threads are the mods and the admins.)
Just to be clear, I didn't change any lock status of this thread.

I was also thinking that things were going downhill and I was thinking about what I should do. At the same time, gladly, things started to go uphill again.

So, I'm looking forward to an interesting discussion. From what I know, discussing the differences between moderate "left wing" and moderate "right wing" is common in many countries.

Quote from: Ertxiem on August 05, 2011, 05:25:11 AM

Quote from: bugfartboy on August 04, 2011, 09:24:15 PM
Uh. Does Ert want to? I think DeagonX forgot. :/

I believe that the topic starter can lock his own thread. (Of course that the other people that can lock threads are the mods and the admins.)
Just to be clear, I didn't change any lock status of this thread.

I had locked it, then subsequently unlocked it by request.

A Democrat is someone who chooses to affiliate him or herself with the Democratic Party.
A Republican is someone who chooses to affiliate him or herself with the Republican Party.

Beyond that, I think you're going to have a hell of a time trying to define consistent core beliefs for the two parties without engaging in broad generalizations.

Quote from: CraigStern on August 22, 2011, 10:55:48 PM
A Democrat is someone who chooses to affiliate him or herself with the Democratic Party.
A Republican is someone who chooses to affiliate him or herself with the Republican Party.

Beyond that, I think you're going to have a hell of a time trying to define consistent core beliefs for the two parties without engaging in broad generalizations.

Heh, heh, heh, well said.

I think the "Cash for Clunkers" program is a good example to how Democrats and Republicans approach the economy.  Since the car industry was hurting the Dempcrats wanted to intervene by offering between $3,500 to $4,500 to people who are will to trade an old car in for a new car.  By making cars artificially cheaper, Democrats hoped to help to save the car industry.  Replublicans didn't agree with Cash for Clunkers because they believe that the government shouldn't tax everyone and then funnel money to industries they like.   Replublicans also believe artificially messing with supply and demand has bad consequences.

Let's stay on topic: this is thread about differences in core political beliefs between America's two major political parties, not about the effectiveness of particular legislative acts.

Here is a more neutral way of (very broadly) phrasing the differences in philosophy between the parties: Democrats believe that society's problems can and should be managed through smart use of laws and government programs; Republicans are skeptical of this premise, believing that government programs generally tend to produce unintended, undesirable results.

Of course, as much as some people hate to talk about it, there are very real class considerations tangled up in this. Democrats have traditionally championed programs to assist the poor and working classes, while Republicans have traditionally opposed those programs as fostering dependence on the government. Republicans tend to believe that the best thing the government can do to assist those struggling in our society is to reduce taxes on wealthy individuals so that companies will have more resources to hire workers. Democrats respond to this argument by citing studies which show that there is zero correlation between lower taxes and increased hiring by corporations.

Because of this ideological rift, you end up with one party fighting for programs that would have the government provide more resources to low and middle-income Americans, and the other party fighting to destroy those programs in the belief that they are useless, inefficient, or unintentionally harmful, and in their place--yes, as much as you probably didn't want to hear it, here it is--cut taxes on the wealthy.

Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 02:40:20 PMyes, as much as you probably didn't want to hear it, here it is--cut taxes on the wealthy.

Republicans want to cut taxes for everyone--not just the wealthy.  Democrats tend to want to spread the wealth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM) by taxing high income earners and then giving it to people who make less money.  Democrats think people are "entitled" to benefits, while Republicans think people should earn things themselves.

Democrats want to spend money on social programs.
Republicans want to spend money on the military.
(Yes, I realize both parties are about more than just the military and/or social programs.)

Both social programs and the military have their benefits, however neither party has figured out that as long as we keep spending more money than we have, we dig ourselves deeper into a hole.  I think the main difference is that each party has its own different sacred cows that cannot be touched that they use to polarize and divide the country.

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?

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.

Is it worth noting that the wealthy get taxed MORE to begin with?


As I understand it, its a percentage of your paycheck. So if I make 100,000 every year and they take 10 percent they take 10,000. If I make 50000 a year they take 5000.

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.

At least, that is how it theoretically works.  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).

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.

So, yes, the wealthy typically would pay more in flat dollar amounts.  Percentage-wise, they would appear to be taxed at a higher percent as well, but that can be dramatically lowered depending on the source of income.

Could the same not be said about EITC for the poor?

Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 03:37:21 PM

Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 02:40:20 PMyes, as much as you probably didn't want to hear it, here it is--cut taxes on the wealthy.

Republicans want to cut taxes for everyone--not just the wealthy.

I thought that too, but I have a hard time reconciling that with this latest move (http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block-124016578.html).

Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 03:37:21 PMDemocrats think people are "entitled" to benefits, while Republicans think people should earn things themselves.

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, 05:53:06 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.

One thing worth mentioning: people do not belong to tax brackets, income does (http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2008/12/04/how-do-federal-income-tax-brackets-work/).

Quote from: sarlok on August 23, 2011, 05:07:15 PMDemocrats want to spend money on social programs.
Republicans want to spend money on the military.

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, 05:07:15 PMIf 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?

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, 05:07:15 PMThis 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.

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, 05:53:06 PMHowever, 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).

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 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0).  Also, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of federal income taxes (http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners).  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, 05:53:06 PMAlso, 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.

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.

Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 09:21:25 PM

Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 03:37:21 PM

Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 02:40:20 PMyes, as much as you probably didn't want to hear it, here it is--cut taxes on the wealthy.

Republicans want to cut taxes for everyone--not just the wealthy.

I thought that too, but I have a hard time reconciling that with this latest move (http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block-124016578.html).

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

Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 09:21:25 PM

Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 03:37:21 PM

Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 02:40:20 PMyes, as much as you probably didn't want to hear it, here it is--cut taxes on the wealthy.

Republicans want to cut taxes for everyone--not just the wealthy.

I thought that too, but I have a hard time reconciling that with this latest move (http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block-124016578.html).

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, 09:21:25 PM

Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 03:37:21 PMDemocrats think people are "entitled" to benefits, while Republicans think people should earn things themselves.

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.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement_program) 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.

Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 10:03:36 PMObama 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.

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 (http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf), not further burden working class families. That's just my opinion, of course.

Quote from: SmartyPants on August 23, 2011, 03:37:21 PMFor 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.

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 (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2073520,00.html)) of unemployment is virtually impossible. I hope you never have to find this out through personal experience.

Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 11:42:23 PMThe 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.

I may be wrong, but I always thought Social Security was the government's way to force people to save for retirement.  All of the complex realities aside, I thought Social Security makes people put money into the system now through payroll taxes, and then they get the same amount when they retire from the current payers of the payroll taxes.  I thought the payroll cap limits the amount of money one puts in and takes out of the system. If people aren't paying the payroll taxes, then where are our grandparents going to get their money?

Quote from: CraigStern on August 23, 2011, 11:42:23 PMIt 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.

I never said there shouldn't be unemployment, but I am against Obama continuously extending it.  Maybe I just assume that Americans are irresponisible because 24% of Americans don't have any savings (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/america-financial-insecurity-emergency-savings_n_880378.html) and the recession was caused by people buying houses that they couldn't afford.  My gradfather told me that when he lost his job and couldn't afford his house, he had to move in with his parents and he had to find a job with alot less pay.  Unlike the greatest generation, modern workers are entitled to keep the house they can't afford and they are unwilling to take a lower-paying, less-prestigious job.  But you are right that I don't any experience with unemployment, since I am dependent on my parents and I never had an issue finding a minimum wage job.

That article kind of reiterates what I was saying:

QuoteRespondents under age 30 and those with annual incomes under $30,000 were the most likely to report having no emergency savings whatsoever. Those likeliest to have six months' expenses in an emergency fund were higher-income households and people in their 50s and 60s.

It's hard to save money if you're not making much of it to begin with.

The payroll tax cap puts an upper limit on the amount of income that can be taxed to pay for Social Security. Right now it's capped at approximately $106,000. What this means is that if you make $50,000 a year (which is roughly the median yearly household income in the United States), every penny you earn is subject to payroll tax. However, if you earn $250,000 a year (putting you in roughly the top 2% for median yearly household income), only the first $106,000 you earn is subject to the tax, meaning that you will take home $144,000 free and clear. The more money you make above $106,000, the less you pay as a percentage of your income.

This makes the payroll tax highly regressive: it hits the poor and working classes much harder than it does the wealthy. Simultaneously, it puts an artificial limit on how much revenue the government takes in to fund Social Security. If we're going to do something to shore up funding for Social security, removing the cap makes much more sense than raising taxes on the working class.

I thought the deficit debate was a good example of how the parties differ.  Almost everyone in Washington agrees that the deficit should be lowered (the exception would be a few Democrats like Nancy Pelosi who think the deficit is a future generation's problem and a few Democrats like Obama who correctly believe that reducing the deficit won't create jobs, so it would be better to try to reduce it when the economy is better).   The Republicans believe that the issue with the deficit is the government is too big and costly, so the solution to reducing the deficit is cutting government spending.  The Democrats believe that big government is necessary and the deficit is caused by underfunding, so their solution to reducing the deficit is raising taxes.

If you look at the broad terms "government spending" and "raising taxes," we all know which one people will chose. But rarely do they have perspective enough to understand what, exactly, their tax money and their government's spending is doing for them. To list a few comparisons (which may or may not be valid):

I'd rather pay higher taxes than have my kids go to an underfunded school.
I'd rather pay higher taxes than drive on cruddy roads.
I'd rather pay higher taxes than have minimum wage not be a living wage.
I'd rather pay higher taxes than have an unsafe country.
I'd rather pay higher taxes than have a public defender that didn't care about my case because he wasn't paid well.
I'd rather pay higher taxes than let rapists and murderers not be brought to justice.

Then again, I'm always willing to pay taxes, because I've never been taxed. So take that with a grain of salt. But I'm trying to say that while taxes aren't pleasant, they are the means by which we have the things our government provides for us that we hold so dear.

Quote from: Duckling on September 15, 2011, 05:29:06 PMI'd rather pay higher taxes than have my kids go to an underfunded school.

According to the constitution, the federal government shouldn't even be involved in education.  Funding and running schools should be left to the states.

Quote from: Duckling on September 15, 2011, 05:29:06 PMI'd rather pay higher taxes than drive on cruddy roads.
I'd rather pay higher taxes than have minimum wage not be a living wage.

The Federal government doesn't spend much on infrastructure and welfare, because the bulk of the US budget goes towards inefficient entitlement programs.

Quote from: Duckling on September 15, 2011, 05:29:06 PMI'd rather pay higher taxes than have an unsafe country.

We spend way too much money on Defence.  The US doesn't need to have a navy that is bigger then the rest of the world's navies combined.   We also don't need to have a large military force in every corner of the world.

Quote from: Duckling on September 15, 2011, 05:29:06 PMI'd rather pay higher taxes than have a public defender that didn't care about my case because he wasn't paid well.
I'd rather pay higher taxes than let rapists and murderers not be brought to justice.

Local and State governments are the ones who pay for public defenders and police, so federal tax dollars don't pay for that.

Quote from: Duckling on September 15, 2011, 05:29:06 PMThen again, I'm always willing to pay taxes, because I've never been taxed. So take that with a grain of salt. But I'm trying to say that while taxes aren't pleasant, they are the means by which we have the things our government provides for us that we hold so dear.

That is an example of why young people tend to be liberal.  When people get older, they tend to get more independent and make more money.  When people are young, they don't have any money for the govenment to take and they are dependent on thier parents, so young people are strongly for government programs.  Winston Churchill once said, "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."

Quote from: SmartyPants on September 15, 2011, 07:33:29 PM
That is an example of why young people tend to be liberal.  When people get older, they tend to get more independent and make more money.  When people are young, they don't have any money for the govenment to take and they are dependent on thier parents, so young people are strongly for government programs.  Winston Churchill once said, "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."

I actually remember when you first said this. The bit about young people being liberal. Very well spoken I must say.

Off Topic: I have a student in my grade whos name is William Churchill.

I'm sorry, but your Winston Churchill quote, although commonly attributed to him, is a misquotation. François Guizot, a French historian and statesman (of whom you most likely have not heard), originally said, in the mid-nineteenth century:

"N'être pas républicain à vingt ans est preuve d'un manque de cœur; l'être après trente ans est preuve d'un manque de tête," which translates roughly to:

"Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head," republicans being the liberals of the time.

And he did not ever take the quote and modify it, or use it in a witty way such that the quote is attributed to him.

Winston Churchill has used and modified other people's quotes many times.  He is usully given credit for them because of the witty ways he uses those quotes.


Does anyone have anything relevant on the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

Quote from: SmartyPants on September 20, 2011, 07:05:41 PM
Does anyone have anything relevant on the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

So far its just been mostly people pointing out the immoral beliefs of the other party.

Quote from: Deagonx on September 22, 2011, 09:19:49 PMSo far its just been mostly people pointing out the immoral beliefs of the other party.

Immoral beliefs?  I see differences in opinion, but I dont see either side having "immoral beliefs".

Quote from: SmartyPants on September 22, 2011, 11:09:56 PM

Quote from: Deagonx on September 22, 2011, 09:19:49 PMSo far its just been mostly people pointing out the immoral beliefs of the other party.

Immoral beliefs?  I see differences in opinion, but both I see either side having "immoral beliefs".

I don't understand what you are trying to convey.

He means that even though he thinks that the people that don't share his opinions aren't right, it doesn't mean that they're depraved.

Quote from: Duckling on September 25, 2011, 04:25:31 PMHe means that even though he thinks that the people that don't share his opinions aren't right, it doesn't mean that they're depraved.

Duckling said it well.  Democrats and Republicans are all Americans, so I think we can all agree to respect someone else's views.