GOP Presidential debate #3

[Arlos]

All this whining about how we're crushed under our tax burden just makes me laugh. We have one of the lowest tax rates IN US HISTORY right now.

I invite you to go look at: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html and look at historical tax rates if you think you are being unduly burdened.

How about the 1950s, inarguably a time of prosperity in this country, right? Take a look at their listing for nominal tax rate, and inflation adjusted to today. Look at what the top tax rate is: 92%. yes, that's right, NINETY TWO percent. And you're bitching about what, 28%? 33%? 35% at the absolute max, assuming you're paying actual income tax?

How about the 80s, under the right's sainted Ronny Ray-Gun? Well, at the start of his term, in 1981, you could pay as high as 70%. By 83, it was down, but still had a max of 50%, and you only needed to make just over 123k in today's dollars to hit that bracket, assuming you're single. (unlike now, where you need to be making almost 190k to hit the top 35% rate). Even still by 1986, the max rate was 50%.

To be completely fair, there WAS a brief time in living memory when it was lower, under Bush Sr in the late 80s and 1990, when the top bracket was 28%, and if you made really ANY money, that was your bracket, period. But guess what, it wasn't sustainable, and that's why he had to RAISE taxes, to bring deficits under control, despite what he promised on the campaign trail. (Read my lips... etc.) By 91 it was at 31%, and by 93, it was up to the rate it was before the Bush tax cuts, of 39.6%. If you want to find a period with even LOWER taxes, you have to go back to 1916. By 1917, the max tax rate was 67%.


So don't go crying to me about your immense tax burden, because I will laugh in your face. You want a tax burden, bring back the 1950s tax schema, and shoot for the 92% bracket, OK?

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Except that's inaccurate, and you're ignoring the big picture.. The total tax burden Is rising to highest level in history

The problem is a lot of Dems think peoples incomes are the governments. I couldn't disagree more.

[Tossica]

and a lot of Republicans think they can reap the benefits of a society without having to pay for any of the infrastructure that makes it happen. Unfortunately, god doesn't seem to give a shit about all that stuff so guess what? You and I get to pay for it.

[Gypsiyee]

Except that's inaccurate, and you're ignoring the big picture.. The total tax burden Is rising to highest level in history

The problem is a lot of Dems think peoples incomes are the governments. I couldn't disagree more.

can we please stop taking forecasting info provided by partisan think tanks and utilizing them as if it's fact? And while we're at it, can we also stop making broad sweeping presumptuous statements about ideology of a political party that have no basis in reality? All it does is take anything reasonable you have to say and discredits it with Chicken Little nonsensical bullshit.

What Arlos said is not inaccurate and simply stating that it is doesn't make it so. Let's have a lesson in how to cite valid unbiased sources, shall we?

[Lyion]

Perhaps we can also ignore completely misleading tax charts that don't take into account capital gains, deductions, offshore accounts and other factors which ignores the true total tax burden and are only pushed out as meme for class warfare? Also, shouldn't we be a tad more efficient today than 100 years ago? I guess some think not, but really we should

Again the simple thing to look at is total tax burden.. We are taxing more and spending more, and all the other bullshit is just deflection.

p.s. That forecast is from the CBO. It has great bearing on tax discussions. Moreso than enacting sily discussions about top margin income taxes in 1946 that weren't really paid anymore than corporations are fairly paying taxes today. These taxes end up hitting the middle class, because the rich have the lobbyists and loopholes on their side.

[Tossica]

I'd like to spend less too. Gut the war machine. Done.

[Gypsiyee]

Frightened, ignorant, clueless and hateful simpletons.

Funny, I just stubled across an article about a scientific study the other day that addresses those very stereotypes :p

Liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear,

[brinstar]

pffffff playing the "class warfare" card is a cunt move

[Kaemon]

Again the simple thing to look at is total tax burden.. We are taxing more and spending more, and all the other bullshit is just deflection.

This

I'd like to spend less too. Gut the war machine. Done.

I have no problem scaling back the military, can we cut back on some of the absurd social welfare programs?

[Gypsiyee]

Perhaps we can also ignore completely misleading tax charts that don't take into account capital gains, deductions, offshore accounts and other factors which ignores the true total tax burden and are only pushed out as meme for class warfare? Also, shouldn't we be a tad more efficient today than 100 years ago? I guess some think not, but really we should

lol, this coming from a constitutional purist?

Again the simple thing to look at is total tax burden.. We are taxing more and spending more, and all the other bullshit is just deflection.

Actually we're spending more and taxing less which is the problem. Here's another non-partisan source, though I'm sure you'll claim it biased because conservatives like to rally against being debunked. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

and another: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/tax ... axes_N.htm

p.s. That forecast is from the CBO.

Please provide me the link to the CBO version of that chart--I like my facts without hysterical commentary from the likes of Heritage, thank you.

Just for kicks, let's look at an analysis of the "big picture" from another non-partisan source!

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=139

These taxes end up hitting the middle class, because the rich have the lobbyists and loopholes on their side.

uh, the loopholes are part of the problem. so instead of correcting those, your solution is to keep their tax rates low compounded on top of the loopholes? that's brilliant.

[Tossica]

Again the simple thing to look at is total tax burden.. We are taxing more and spending more, and all the other bullshit is just deflection.

This

I'd like to spend less too. Gut the war machine. Done.

I have no problem scaling back the military, can we cut back on some of the absurd social welfare programs?

Absolutely. The ones the provide basic needs for families, the eldrly and those who can't work? Not likely. There's middle ground there and I think most liberals would agree. Just don't invite Jesus to the party and quit trying to legislate from the bible.

[Lyion]

I think you're confusing me with Flink. Where did you get the idea I'm a constitutional purist? I'm for abolishing the second amendment. I want Article Three completely overhauled.

I've actually spent my whole life working and believe taxes are too high based on the ghastly amount I have paid.

The chart above is based on OMB data taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget.

I've given you straight facts based on non partisan government accounting that our tax and spending both are huge and the predictions are frightening. Your link is a snapshot of a small segment of the budget regarding solely Federal income tax and does not properly address tax levels at all. My links are valid and the tax burden point remains a simple fact that Arlos and you are trying to bypass with smoke and mirrors.

Toss, I'm perfectly happy with closing 2/3 of the over 800 military bases we have overseas, and gutting 3/4 of the high tech military programs that are fleecing the taxpayer. Unfortunately, the bigger problem is entitlement spending which is going to bankrupt our country.

I know you bleeding heart types want to make sure everyone everywhere is taken care of in a socialist fashion, but the problem is eventually you're going to run out of other peoples money to spend.

[Gypsiyee]

Not confusing you with Flink. I don't think you're that stupid. My assumption of your constitutional regard is based on those you claim to support, so if I'm wrong about your stance there then I apologize.

Are you making the implication that myself or other liberals haven't spent our whole lives working and paying taxes? If so, you'd be completely wrong in my case.

I've given you straight facts based on non partisan government accounting that our tax and spending both are huge and the predictions are frightening

I don't think you know what straight facts are, then. What you've given me is a pretty picture from Heritage which shows Heritage's calculations based on actual data. Interpretations and forecasts from think tanks and commentators aren't straight facts, but I'm sure you know that.

My link is a snapshot of historical income tax rates which is all I claimed them to be. That's the difference between your comments and mine; I'm taking data and calling it what it is. You're taking partisan interpretations and calculations and calling it data. I'm sorry that you don't know the difference. Your making giant hyperbolic statements with no substantiation but calculations from conservative think tanks that you seek out for self validation is the very definition of smoke and mirrors, sir.

As for your socialist comments, I think I've had my fill of arguments and accusations wildly based on parroting commentator talking points.

[Lyion]

I'm no libertarian, although I agree with them on a few points.

Anyways, we're beating a dead horse. Instead of talking about 1950s tax rates or 2050 projections, we should ask how much should our tax burden be today? Should entitlements be reformed and how? How should we promote job growth and should we raise taxes on small business owners and successful entrepreneurs? More importantly, how do we level the playing field for American workers, especially those who have seen their jobs outsourced due to wage disparities between third world countries and the ease of offshoring via the Internet.

Another stimulus[sorry, *jobs* investment bill*] won't help in any of those regards, and will merely hurt our tax burden by adding to our long term debt. On the GOP side, simply cutting dinero from the budget is equally a bad idea without a bigger plan. Those cuts do effect people.

What I think we need are: close 700 bases overseas, end the war in Afghanistan and stay on the same timetable in Iraq, cut 90% of the weapons budget for the military, add a constitutional amendment for the Federal Government to balance the budget every year, have a 25 year plan to pay off our debt that also restricts access to Social Security funds and forces payback, Medicare/Medicaid heavy reform that both W and Obama proposed, more opening of energy reserves in America, Tariffs for goods created outside of America that are displacing US workers just like other countries do, heavy penalties on Fortune 500 companies that outsource jobs for US services, replacing Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank legislation, and doing a complete overhaul of the federal bureaucracy in every department.

I'm curious what some of you Dem peoples think, and what your suggestions would be. Especially for job growth.

[Spazz]

TARIFFS TARIFFS TARIFFS .Fines for any company that hires illegals that hurt so bad getting caught might put you out of business. A huge manhattan project style project on new energies. FDR style project to rebuild our entire infrastructure. Last but not least a new transit system that connects the 48 states with lighting speed to make travel as easy and fast as possible.

How I plan to pay for it. By ending free trade if it can be made here it gets made here on everything ( to avoid becoming a waste land I would also give to the epa the now defunct deas budget, all factories will have to operate as cleanly as is possible. New taxes on the top 10 % of our country and closing tax loop holes and shelters. A complete gutting of the military and ending of the wars like right now. Pay social security taxes on income after 100000 dollars. Make social security an as needed thing if you did really well in life you become opted out. A reworking of our laws and prison system and huge cuts to police budgets especially anything relating to drugs. Taxes on pot like beer and smokes. Huge cuts and possibly an end to all foreign aid.

I would also try to make the system work by localizing jobs by state as much as possible. What i mean by that is the people in Michigan make tvs glocks , G i joe figures and whatever you can think of in michigan. Same for every other state in hopes of putting as many people to work as possible. Not sure entirely how to make that possible. Perhaps state tax incentives for companies and some kind of interstate commerce taxes.

Wild ideas from a wild man

[Gypsiyee]

Even when we're talking about total current tax burden, it's still lower than it has been in decades and that's something that can be substantiated by figures from the CBO (not an interpretation of figures, but the actual figures.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... st01z2.xls

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc121 ... Budget.pdf <--that link has the true actual info that I assume Heritage's little chart came from, FYI

You say should we raise taxes on small businesses, but that's not really ever been a recommendation factor. I don't think anyone's saying let's punish small business owners. As far as leveling the playing field, certainly you recognize that the outsourcing is a direct result of large businesses after their bottom line and a prime example that lowering the taxes of the super rich isn't successful in keeping jobs here?

There's this misconception that the left just wants to trample the middle and lower classes to the ground with taxes when it's the exact opposite. You can raise taxes on the middle and lower classes to an astronomical rate that will absolutely impoverish them and it still won't make a dent because we don't own any of the wealth. Or, we can close the loopholes, change the corporate tax rate which is really low (and I don't much feel guilty about thinking that rate should be raised since having it as low as it is obviously isn't serving to create jobs). Evasions at that level need enforced and deterring punishment.

Call the jobs bill what you will, but I'm not sure what you'd propose as an option. Corporations and their owners are enjoying some of the lowest taxes they've ever had and they aren't creating jobs. Are we supposed to just wait it out and hope they change their minds on their profit margin and start hiring en masse? That isn't going to happen. The preamble takes note of government's role to promote the general welfare; I think the current situation pretty much falls into that category where some governance is required.

Cutting the DoD budget is something I agree with, but that's a double edged sword too. DoD is definitely in my view one of the first places that needs cut, but as a DoD employee I also recognize that there are 3 million of us employed. We've already seen lots of budget cuts at work including little stuff like not filling behind people when they leave and losing the cost of living increase and essentially losing our entire training budget. There are a lot of things that can be done more efficiently, to be sure, but when those options are exhausted, the obvious next step would be to start letting people go in a RIF when the budgets get even tighter. In a time of terrible unemployment rates, it's kind of counterintuitive to get to a point where you're laying people off. We're working class just like anyone else is. Of course, Ann Coulter thinks we're leeches equivalent to career welfare receipients, but if you have any sense (and I think as someone who was active duty you do) then you know that that's not the case.

Do we have some fat to be trimmed? Absolutely. With a workforce as large as ours, though, executing that can be troublesome and you can end up cutting off your nose to spite your face. Adding to the unemployment line just for the perception of smaller government doesn't really accomplish anything. If we could do a simple shift as to what projects are being worked on, then I have no problem with that. Cut the defense budget, but keep opportunities open in creating clean energy and infrastructure. Tit for tat, nothing lost and other opportunities gained, and we also have to remember that one of the primary purposes of civil service was to provide employment for vets after they were no longer active duty.

I don't disagree with you on the annual balancing, I think that's a really important thing to do and something I believe congress as a whole is all on board with. Individuals do it, families do it, companies do it.. government should be no different.

By opening more energy reserves, I assume you mean drilling. This is another thing that we'll never agree on because it's a band-aid fix. Destroying land to tap into finite resources is incredibly short-sighted in my view, and since I know this conversation has been had a million times over I suppose I don't need to go into much detail there.

Tariffs and heavy penalties I totally agree with, and I think it's an atrocity that people who outsource jobs escape many taxes here because the US looks at it as double taxation since they're paying taxes overseas.

I don't think there's anything wrong with gainful government employment and investment into important new research and projects, be it through the military, civil service, or contracted work. I don't think that we should look at government and say it's too small or too large, but rather what it's accomplishing. If endeavors are being financed to create long term growth and improvement of the country including clean energy and infrastructure, I don't see that as a problem. To me, there's no reason that government shouldn't be able to be competitive with the private sector on those projects that stand to both benefit the country, put ourselves back in competition with the rest of the world in advancement, and get people to work.

[Arlos]

As I've said before, I am dead-set against any kind of constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget, because it will completely tie the hands of any future administration to deal with major crises. You think we could have fought WW2 if we had to have a balanced budget? Hell no. We don't know what troubles we might face in the future, and crippling our ability to deal with them is completely insane.

As for more drilling here, why? You DO know that none of the locally drilled oil is necessarily SOLD here, right? It's put onto the world market and shipped to whoever buys it. Drilling more here does not in any way mean that we'll have cheaper oil prices here in the US due to more locally drilled oil. That's an utter fallacy. The only time it even remotely would matter is in the face of something akin to another OPEC oil embargo, like in the 70s, which I consider basically impossible to happen in this day and age.

Also, it's a complete fallacy that cutting taxes on business and high income earners will create jobs. We can see that RIGHT NOW. Look at company's profit margins and cash reserves. There are companies sitting on billions and tens of billions of cash in the bank, yet they are not hiring. Why? Because there's not enough demand. It's a vicious catch-22. Companies won't hire until there's more demand, but there can't be more demand until more people are working. Just handing them more cash to put in the bank is sure as hell not going to induce them to hire people. Ergo, we need some other source of job creation.

That's where the Federal government comes in. We have fucktons of crumbling infrastructure in this country. Bridges that are in danger of collapse, roads and highways that desperately need repair, schools that need massive work, etc. Hell, I've read a story that there are some towns that have started deliberately ripping pavement off of streets and going back to gravel roads because they can't afford to maintain paved ones. So, we embark on a massive infrastructure overhaul in this country. Put people to work fixing roads, bridges, schools and other important infrastructure, expanding highways, putting in new public transit, fixing and upgrading storm and levee systems for cities at risk of hurricane strike, etc. Much like Eisenhower did in the 50s with building the interstate system to begin with. Give people jobs where they can predict they'll still be working in 2-3 years, and give them an income, and they'll start spending, which will increase demand. Demand increases, other companies start hiring. Effect snowballs.

Longer-term, we need to fix a lot of the tax loopholes, and end a lot of the subsidies to companies that simply don't need it. (WTF does an oil company making 12 billion a quarter in PROFIT need with tax subsidies?) Change the rules to do away with the current incentives companies have to ship jobs abroad, and put in incentives for them to hire here in the US. And NOT imported cheap workers on H1-Bs, either. Offer retraining and vocational school programs through an expansion of the student loan program, so people whose jobs are being obsoleted can get retrained to do new tasks. Make sure that public universities are well funded, along with financing aid to students who need it, as we desperately need a well-educated work-force if we want to compete in the global marketplace of the future. Also, close a lot of those foreign military bases, and as many domestic bases we can get away with as well. Prioritize projects at the DoD that have commercial spin-off potential, like we got from a lot of the early space program work.

Yes, there also needs to be some changes to Medicare and Social Security. Pushing out the minimum age a couple years is a good start. When they were created in the 30s, the average life span was a lot lower than it is now, so people are drawing on their benefits a lot longer. Someone who is 65 now is likely in a very different life/health state, and has a much different remaining life expectancy than someone who was 65 in 1940. There should also be some form of means testing, as well as SOMETHING done to rein in spiraling medical costs.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

Let me clarify my stance on that first paragraph. I'm not in favor of a constitutional amendment for forcing a an annual budget balance at all. What I do think and agree with Lyion on is that it's common sense to have a routine procedure and game plan to evaluate, forecast, and adjust as necessary based on current situations to eliminate this issue of continuing astronomical spending in areas that should've been finished long ago. For example, overspending on wars that should've never existed in the first place where now the beast has grown so large that phasing it out is taking way longer than it needs to and we continue to bleed money needlessly.

My belief is that it's not a bad thing to evaluate priorities based on economic and other conditions on a routine basis. Reasonable and routine discussion and effort eliminates the issue of falling a rut keeping things the way they are because that's the way they've always been. We have this tendency to wait until a problem is too big to easily fix before even bothering to address it. Then we get too involved in politicking and red tape to come up with a viable solution because then it becomes this huge divisive issue.

My take is that it doesn't hurt to have more common sense preventative maintenance discussion instead of ignoring an obvious potential problem and allowing it to become a gigantic political issue that causes gridlock and prevents adequate correction of something that affects millions of people. The lack of routine civil discourse regarding the budget and acknowledgement of budgetary problems (small and large) in DC only helps to build much larger and dooming crises.

[Tikker]

TARIFFS TARIFFS TARIFFS

By ending free trade if it can be made here it gets made here on everything

you realize then, that countries you import huge amounts of natural resources from will then do the same?

[Spazz]

Yea I do. Im not for an embargo in for some fair trade. Or we can just keep doing what we have been doing and continue on our race to the bottom and buying cheap shit from china and hoping we dont lose our job.

All of a sudden due to tariffs people arent going to want to exchange goods anymore ? How did we exist as a country before we got everything from china ? Other countries have them and our favorite trading partner does it to us .....

I think all countries should run tariffs. I think all countries have a responsibility to their citizens to look out for whats best for them you know jobs and livable wages and all that . I think if we did a tariff thing than maybe said canadian company would make its goods in the us to avoid the tariff same thing with an american company. If we have to import we will have to pay for it same as you.

The name of the game here is protecting your industry and keeping your people working.

Way to ignore the rest of my ideas for fixing the economy.

Spazz for president dudes .

[Arlos]

I think we need to take a look at Germany and see what they're doing that we're not.

They are just as high-tech as we are, just as tapped into the global marketplace. Yet their economy is booming, and they have managed to maintain a thriving manufacturing industry in-country, that hasn't been outsourced as ours has.

So what's the difference? I think we need to take a good hard look there, and start borrowing ideas liberally.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

I think we need to take a look at Germany and see what they're doing that we're not.

They are just as high-tech as we are, just as tapped into the global marketplace. Yet their economy is booming, and they have managed to maintain a thriving manufacturing industry in-country, that hasn't been outsourced as ours has.

So what's the difference? I think we need to take a good hard look there, and start borrowing ideas liberally.

-Arlos

They also have a very high unemployment rate right now.

[Spazz]

Long as I can keep my guns im fine with being more like europe I think.

[Tossica]

I think we need to take a look at Germany and see what they're doing that we're not.

They are just as high-tech as we are, just as tapped into the global marketplace. Yet their economy is booming, and they have managed to maintain a thriving manufacturing industry in-country, that hasn't been outsourced as ours has.

So what's the difference? I think we need to take a good hard look there, and start borrowing ideas liberally.

-Arlos

They also have a very high unemployment rate right now.

Much lower than ours.

[Tikker]

. I think if we did a tariff thing than maybe said canadian company would make its goods in the us to avoid the tariff same thing with an american company..

um, that just moves your problem to the canadian company

not sustainable

the biggest problem is that everyone in america (the continent, not just the states) is trying to live WAY beyond their means