Do we really need a Democratic and Republican party?

• Al Bundy

  isadore;1133781 wrote:We can see the true feelings of the 99% in their feeling that the taxes on the rich are too low.

  In Isaland, what would be the tax rate of the top 1%? Top 50%? bottom 50%?
• isadore

  Al Bundy;1133786 wrote:In Isaland, what would be the tax rate of the top 1%? Top 50%? bottom 50%?

  bottom 50%? rolling it back to pre Reagan level would be a good start.
• Al Bundy

  isadore;1133800 wrote:bottom 50%? rolling it back to pre Reagan level would be a good start.

  So you want to go back to the Carter era where inflation made prices horrible for everyone?
• Al Bundy

  isadore;1133800 wrote:bottom 50%? rolling it back to pre Reagan level would be a good start.

  And you avoided the question about what you feel that the top 1% should pay in income tax.
• dwccrew

  

  Footwedge;1133530 wrote:Haha...no they are not biased towards the rich. But they are swayed much more easily by high priced attorneys. Defendents pay big bucks for a reason. Ask Orenthal.

  I think the prosecutors are too blame in that case. They dropped the ball.
  

  gut;1133574 wrote: You again display complete ignorance

  That is really all you had to say when in reference to him/her.
  
  

  isadore;1133685 wrote:And I made minimum wage when I was in my teens, so what. When I made it I was not the sole support of myself. I could put money in the bank for college, I could buy clothes. I knew I would have a roof over my head and food in my belly.
  And there are all kinds of places where minimum wage jobs lead nowhere. We have high unemployment rate. We have much structural unemployment with jobs of a lifetime disappearing. It is so easy for use who have an education, stable employment, resources to condemn those who do not. Gosh if they would only work harder and save on that $8 an hour, they could be us.

  
  And that is a great point you make. When you were making minimum wage you saved it to better yourself, while being supported by others (your parents I assume). Now when people are making minimum wage, they have the chance to save and try to better themselves as you did. They can also get support to buy food and housing provided to them. So they would be in the same situation you were in as a teen. However, often people choose not to better themselves, they just want to be provided for and that is that. It is unacceptable. I have no problem helping out via taxes for someone that is trying to actually better themselves and get educated and get off assistance. I do have issue with people who think I should just pay for their stuff and it ends there.
• isadore

  Al Bundy;1133813 wrote:So you want to go back to the Carter era where inflation made prices horrible for everyone?

  actually its the LBJ, Nixon, Ford level that Carter continued
  http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
• isadore

  dwccrew;1133830 wrote:I think the prosecutors are too blame in that case. They dropped the ball.
  
  
  
  That is really all you had to say when in reference to him/her.
  
  
  
  
  And that is a great point you make. When you were making minimum wage you saved it to better yourself, while being supported by others (your parents I assume). Now when people are making minimum wage, they have the chance to save and try to better themselves as you did. They can also get support to buy food and housing provided to them. So they would be in the same situation you were in as a teen. However, often people choose not to better themselves, they just want to be provided for and that is that. It is unacceptable. I have no problem helping out via taxes for someone that is trying to actually better themselves and get educated and get off assistance. I do have issue with people who think I should just pay for their stuff and it ends there.

  Some people are for physical or mental problems never going to get off government assistance. So you are suggesting they save money. A traditional problem with these programs are that they were means tested so that if they did what you suggested they would be thrown out of the program. They are experimenting with allowing some savings nows. But again we are talking about people often with children and with very limited means.
  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/tanf_asset_tests.html
• Al Bundy

  isadore;1133834 wrote:actually its the LBJ, Nixon, Ford level that Carter continued
  http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

  Why not go back to the 94% rate, comrade?
• Al Bundy

  isadore;1133858 wrote:Some people are for physical or mental problems never going to get off government assistance. So you are suggesting they save money. A traditional problem with these programs are that they were means tested so that if they did what you suggested they would be thrown out of the program. They are experimenting with allowing some savings nows. But again we are talking about people often with children and with very limited means.
  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/tanf_asset_tests.html

  The goal of an assistance program should be to have an end in sight. We have many families who have been leaching off the governent for generations.
• isadore

  Al Bundy;1133862 wrote:Why not go back to the 94% rate, comrade?

  that was the rate in 1944 and 45, well if we fought the nazis again, it would be a really good idea.
• said_aouita

  

  password;1132585 wrote:has said that they would vote for a homeless person addicted to drugs if they were a Democrat before they would vote for a Republican.

  By chance are they union employed?
• isadore

  Al Bundy;1133865 wrote:The goal of an assistance program should be to have an end in sight. We have many families who have been leaching off the governent for generations.

  Leaching wow, the cup of human kindness overflow. The large majority of the money provided to those in need is for medical and food programs. So if we would just eliminate the problem would take care of itself. And no one would be leaching off you. Women and children who make up such a large part of those living in poverty would no longer be leaching off you. And those dead beat handicapped and elderly.
  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/12/public_benefits.html
• Al Bundy

  isadore;1133876 wrote:Leaching wow, the cup of human kindness overflow. The large majority of the money provided to those in need is for medical and food programs. So if we would just eliminate the problem would take care of itself. And no one would be leaching off you. Women and children who make up such a large part of those living in poverty would no longer be leaching off you. And those dead beat handicapped and elderly.
  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/12/public_benefits.html

  Temporary help to get back on your feet is kindness. Enabling generations of leaching is not fair to those paying the bills, and you actually help the people make something out of their lives.
• isadore

  Al Bundy;1133882 wrote:Temporary help to get back on your feet is kindness. Enabling generations of leaching is not fair to those paying the bills, and you actually help the people make something out of their lives.

  Not providing for the mentally and physically handicapped is cruelty.
  Not providing for children is cruelty.
  Not providing for those harmed by the failures of our health and education systems is cruelty
  No providing for those harmed the systemic failures of our economic system with its cyclical and structural unemployment and inability to provide the necessary number of adequately paying employment is cruelty.
  Of course all the above are just a bunch of fucking leeches.
• Footwedge

  Al Bundy;1133862 wrote:Why not go back to the 94% rate, comrade?

  You know what's funny? The period where we had 91% marginal tax rates corresponded to the smallest growth of national debt...the highest level of GNP growth...and the biggest foreign trade surplus in our history. Doesn't sound too comradery to me...just sayin.
  
  As for the top 1% and their respective tax rate...be careful about crying too big a big river for them. These people's net after taxes has risen about 400%...as compared to the bottom 95% whose purchasing power has been a median of net zero....otr worse.
  
  It's easy to play the pro capitalism card...in that capitalism has led to great wealth....especially here in the states. The inate problems with late stage unfettered capitalism is the absolute migration into a 2 class society...as both Carl Marx AND Adam Smith had warned us about.
  
  I've seen this metamorphosis take place in my 35 years of adulthood.
• Al Bundy

  Footwedge;1133924 wrote:You know what's funny? The period where we had 91% marginal tax rates corresponded to the smallest growth of national debt...the highest level of GNP growth...and the biggest foreign trade surplus in our history. Doesn't sound too comradery to me...just sayin.
  
  As for the top 1% and their respective tax rate...be careful about crying too big a big river for them. These people's net after taxes has risen about 400%...as compared to the bottom 95% whose purchasing power has been a median of net zero....otr worse.
  
  It's easy to play the pro capitalism card...in that capitalism has led to great wealth....especially here in the states. The inate problems with late stage unfettered capitalism is the absolute migration into a 2 class society...as both Carl Marx AND Adam Smith had warned us about.
  
  I've seen this metamorphosis take place in my 35 years of adulthood.

  The good economic conditions of that time might have had more to do with the rest of the world bein in ruins after WWII and needing to buy US goods than it had to do with 91% income tax.
• dwccrew

  

  isadore;1133858 wrote:Some people are for physical or mental problems never going to get off government assistance. So you are suggesting they save money. A traditional problem with these programs are that they were means tested so that if they did what you suggested they would be thrown out of the program. They are experimenting with allowing some savings nows. But again we are talking about people often with children and with very limited means.
  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/tanf_asset_tests.html

  
  And those with physical and mental problems are not the ones I had addressed in my post, are they? I said people that are working and capable of working. Do not attempt to do your usual twisting of words. I have no issue providing help for those that do not have the capability to help themselves, I am taking about the ones that do have the ability to better themselves but they often don't because they'd rather get a free check via assistance programs.
  

  isadore;1133887 wrote:Not providing for the mentally and physically handicapped is cruelty. (Agree)
  Not providing for children is cruelty. (Agree, especially parents who do not provide for their children. These children should be place in child protective services and their parents in prison, instead we just give them lifelong assistance and ignore the problem)
  Not providing for those harmed by the failures of our health and education systems is cruelty (Disagree to an extent, the health and education systems in this country have a limited capacity of what they can offer and do for people. It is also the responsibility of each individual to educate themselves and also live a healthy lifestyle.)
  No providing for those harmed the systemic failures of our economic system with its cyclical and structural unemployment and inability to provide the necessary number of adequately paying employment is cruelty. (Disagree completely. It is the responsiblity of each individual to prepare for economic conditions that may affect them.)
  Of course all the above are just a bunch of ****ing leeches.

  My responses to your statements are in bold. You are ignoring the people that abuse the system. There is a percentage of people that really do need and benefit from assistance programs, which is why I am not in favor of completely eliminating them. What I am in favor of is making these programs more efficient and effective by elimintating the people that cheat the system and abuse it.
  
  In Ohio, you can receive welfare benefits if you have no income. Even if you are worth $10 million, but have no income, you can receive benefits. This is just one loophole in a system with many loopholes that needs repaired. People that are capable of working but choose to live off welfare are hurting the people that you described in your post by taking their benefits and making less available for those who really need it.
• isadore

  dwccrew;1133949 wrote:And those with physical and mental problems are not the ones I had addressed in my post, are they? I said people that are working and capable of working. Do not attempt to do your usual twisting of words. I have no issue providing help for those that do not have the capability to help themselves, I am taking about the ones that do have the ability to better themselves but they often don't because they'd rather get a free check via assistance programs.
  
  
  
  My responses to your statements are in bold. You are ignoring the people that abuse the system. There is a percentage of people that really do need and benefit from assistance programs, which is why I am not in favor of completely eliminating them. What I am in favor of is making these programs more efficient and effective by elimintating the people that cheat the system and abuse it.
  
  In Ohio, you can receive welfare benefits if you have no income. Even if you are worth $10 million, but have no income, you can receive benefits. This is just one loophole in a system with many loopholes that needs repaired. People that are capable of working but choose to live off welfare are hurting the people that you described in your post by taking their benefits and making less available for those who really need it.

  OK I will support your effort to solve the grinding problem of people with 10 million dollar estates collecting welfare, by eliminating the abomination I am sure we will be able to balance our budget.
  Of course mean testing could eliminate it. But then that would not allow the poor to save as some on this thread have demanded they do.
  Of course a real problem is the way the very rich are able to use the tax code to escape even the Reaganite level of taxing. That is a true abomination.
  But what you are so worried about all these welfare leeches.
  You discount the failure of our education and health systems. The first of which has left millions of the poor unready to function in our economic system. And a health system that has priced itself out of reach for those without government or employment coverage.
  You condemn those thrown out of work by the worst economic downturn in 75 years and others hurt by major structural shifts in our economy as we shift into our globalize post industrial situation. Why didn’t they see it coming. All the experts sure did, that is why we have the lingering problems we face today. So just blame the victims.
  Gosh we will find very few if any single people without children collecting welfare unless they are handicapped. TANF is for families only. So we have these families with children getting barely enough to get by on. People having to take care of children, find minimum wage jobs, try to get some kind of training to better themselves. What a bunch of cheats. It is all so easy to do. Especially for single parents which most of them are. But you will be happy a lot of them have hit their limit to collect. So line up at the food bank and move into your car if you have one.
  http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/incomepovertywelfare/povertydemographics.htm
• Footwedge

  Al Bundy;1133934 wrote:The good economic conditions of that time might have had more to do with the rest of the world bein in ruins after WWII and needing to buy US goods than it had to do with 91% income tax.

  Had to do with both. Back then...we bombed places and then sold them our wares. Pretty good racket. Today we bomb places and then the taxpayers give IOU's to rebuild. Not a good racket.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;1134093 wrote:Had to do with both. Back then...we bombed places and then sold them our wares.

  Back then they bombed us, then we bombed them. Afterward we then sold them our wares....and now they sell us theirs. Sounds fair enough.
• password

  

  said_aouita;1133871 wrote:By chance are they union employed?

  No union, they have been business owners. The say that being a Democrat is the way they were raised and they could never support a Republican.
• dwccrew

  

  isadore;1133990 wrote:OK I will support your effort to solve the grinding problem of people with 10 million dollar estates collecting welfare, by eliminating the abomination I am sure we will be able to balance our budget.
  Of course mean testing could eliminate it. But then that would not allow the poor to save as some on this thread have demanded they do.
  Of course a real problem is the way the very rich are able to use the tax code to escape even the Reaganite level of taxing. That is a true abomination.
  But what you are so worried about all these welfare leeches.

  Yes, I am worried about the welfare leaches, I stated that much. Not sure why you are repeating what I had previously stated.
  
  

  You discount the failure of our education and health systems. The first of which has left millions of the poor unready to function in our economic system. And a health system that has priced itself out of reach for those without government or employment coverage.

  I don't discount anything. How has the healthcare or education system failed anyone? Healthcare is available to anyone, the poor can receive medicaid, the elderly medicare. Education system can't teach effort, ambition and common sense. People have to want to learn, education is available to anyone who wants it, those who say otherwise are lazy and not willing to put the effort in.
  

  You condemn those thrown out of work by the worst economic downturn in 75 years and others hurt by major structural shifts in our economy as we shift into our globalize post industrial situation. Why didn’t they see it coming. All the experts sure did, that is why we have the lingering problems we face today. So just blame the victims.

  I was one of the many that lost their jobs in the economic downturn. I saved enough for me to survive nearly a year (with no assistance needed from the government) until I found a new job. I didn't feel the need to get anyone's pity as it seems you believe people should do when they lose their job. Now I have a great job because I went out and busted my butt trying to find one instead of feeling sorry for myself and asking for handouts. I was capable and had the ability and I have attained a great job.
  

  Gosh we will find very few if any single people without children collecting welfare unless they are handicapped. TANF is for families only. So we have these families with children getting barely enough to get by on. People having to take care of children, find minimum wage jobs, try to get some kind of training to better themselves. What a bunch of cheats. It is all so easy to do. Especially for single parents which most of them are. But you will be happy a lot of them have hit their limit to collect. So line up at the food bank and move into your car if you have one.
  http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/incomepovertywelfare/povertydemographics.htm

  I won't be happy when they hit their limit, I'll be happy when they go out and try to take care of themselves.
• wkfan

  Al Bundy;1133786 wrote:In Isaland, what would be the tax rate of the top 1%? Top 50%? bottom 50%?

  Al Bundy;1133822 wrote:And you avoided the question about what you feel that the top 1% should pay in income tax.

  The top 1% should pay the same percentage of their income as the bottom 50%.
• 2kool4skool

  

  I don't understand the outrage that the "rich" pay a higher % of their income than the "poor." It's not exactly a controversial method of taxation. Hell, Adam Smith writes fairly extensively about the need for the wealthiest to pay a higher % of their wealth than the poor in Wealth of Nations and I'd imagine most Republicans would salivate at the idea of the U.S. following an economy based on Smith's fundamentals.
• wkfan

  2kool4skool;1134581 wrote:I don't understand the outrage that the "rich" pay a higher % of their income than the "poor." It's not exactly a controversial method of taxation. Hell, Adam Smith writes fairly extensively about the need for the wealthiest to pay a higher % of their wealth than the poor in Wealth of Nations and I'd imagine most Republicans would salivate at the idea of the U.S. following an economy based on Smith's fundamentals.

  Wealth of Nations was first published in 1776. The terms economics and capitalism were not even in use yet.
  
  Times have changed......mostly things that no one would expect any author to predict.