Liberal logic
- Thread starter Eagleyed
- Start date
You got everything right except one thing, you used liberals and logic in the same sentence. Liberals are about feelings, not logic. As long as they care it doesn't have to make sense or work.Originally posted by Eagleyed:
Increase taxes on tobacco- to lower tobacco use.
Increase taxes on carbon- to lower carbon emmisions
Increase taxes on sugar- to lower sugar use
Increase taxes on wealth- Wont effect the economy...........
This proud Liberal Democrat would recommend taxes on guns and ammo. Could use the revenue to pay for the armed police that the NRA recommends for every school. ...Black/ Gold
Perfect followup to the previous post Pensacola. Raise taxes... Raise taxes...Raise taxes... and you're suggestion is to raise taxes. Solutions for liberals always involve raising taxes and increasing the size of government.
The best idea of course is to tax things you don't like and give the money to things you do like. Now that is what our Founding Fathers founded this country for.
In a liberal's perfect world, everyone would pay 100% of their income in taxes. In return, they'd get to live in government subsidized housing, get free government food, and ride the government bus for free. Sounds nice until one realizes that we aren't going to have any doctors, lawyers, or engineers because they get the same thing as fast food employees.
That right there sums it all up!!
The current Democratic Party = Bigger Fed Govt.
Bigger Fed Govt = More restrictions
More restrictions = Socialism
Socialism = Dependancy on the Fed Govt. for everything
Dependancy = No motivation to achieve more
No motivation = Failed economy
You know, you see those ads on TV showing how far the US has fallen in the world when it comes to math and science. We must rank dead last in common sense, by a W I D E margin.
You could send every dollar you make to Washington and they would have it spent before your check arrived. Grambling taxes from the coast, they were going to solve our education funding....didn't happen. Tobacco taxes are spent on everything but what we were told they would be spent on. This latest tax bill contained 430 million dollars to help Hollywood film making in Hollywood instead of Canada. 43 million for NASCAR. Only thing more stupid is American voters who continue to let these things happen.
It was the NRA that wanted to increase the size of government by putting police officers in every school. They offered no means to fund the officers, I reccommended a tax on guns and ammo as a means of funding the proposal. ...Black/Gold
And that funding would be no different than any other funding they come up with. Five years from the day it was passed, if that long, they would be looking for more taxes to sustain it because they spent the tax funds else where. Hell, just look at the last tax bill. They have already sent 75% of the revenue it will produce in the first year to NY/NJ for the super storm and they haven't even got it yet. Will we ever learn????
There should never be tax increases without a equal amount of spending cuts, period.
There should never be tax increases without a equal amount of spending cuts, period.
I recommend taxing all felons an extra 15 % on all earnings and any costs to rehab them. If they dont like it then dump them in a river
This post was edited on 1/6 9:32 PM by Larryseagle
This post was edited on 1/6 9:32 PM by Larryseagle
You are so right about the increased revenue that the Dems just passed through. 75% went to NY/NJ for the storm and Pelosi is already saying they are going back on their promise to cut spending if they got the tax increases because they didn't get enough of a tax hike on the successful. What a surprise. Who would have thought that the Dems would say that if the Republicans would give them the tax hikes now and they would promise to cut spending later that they would go back on their word. That has never happened before has it? Don't these dufus Republicans ever learn? they'll probably fall for it again in a couple of months. Meanwhile all that happens is government grows along with the deficit, and the politicians have more power and money to spend.
I am a Liberal Democrat, but greatly support cutting fraud in social programs. I want to help the needy, not those who only take advantage of and play the system. Get the deadbeats into job training programs, or they end up in our prisons. Would rather spend the money to train than to incarcerate....Black/Gold
The problem is how we get people to get into these job training programs? A quick search on the internet shows several in the area. Do we force them into it? Pay them to go? I think a good idea is to focus on getting more high school graduates to focus on short term programs that start paying fast especially if they have lower grades. Such as air conditioning repair, piloting (pays very good and they have a shortage) or at least business degrees, engineering degrees and such. I think a lot of the unemployed need psychological help first before job training.
Those abusers of the system make up a substantial block of Dem voters. Don't expect Dems to do anything about it.
You havn't paid for and earned it. Unless you make around the limit 110,000 a year, you will take out more than twice what you put into SS. You will take out many more times that in medicare. SS as its currently funded requires a population growing very vast to allow several people to fund one persons retirement. Once those funders retirements come, the hope is the population will have grown enough so that several people would now be funding those people's retirements.
So no, you probably haven't earned the money you will take out.
So no, you probably haven't earned the money you will take out.
---------------
The Gov TOOK about $10,000.00/year from my paycheck for 45 years.
Somebody owes me at least $450,000.00. The Gov is giving it back to me at about $25k/year If i die today, my heirs get nothing.
If I had been able to save that money In my own account, with simple growth it would be nearly $1,000,000.00. I could now buy an anuity that would pay me $80,000.00 If i die today, my heirs get whats left.
25K vs 80K? Please explain how the Gov plan is better than the "P" word.
---------------
The Gov TOOK about $10,000.00/year from my paycheck for 45 years.
Somebody owes me at least $450,000.00. The Gov is giving it back to me at about $25k/year If i die today, my heirs get nothing.
If I had been able to save that money In my own account, with simple growth it would be nearly $1,000,000.00. I could now buy an anuity that would pay me $80,000.00 If i die today, my heirs get whats left.
25K vs 80K? Please explain how the Gov plan is better than the "P" word.
I said you probably haven't earned the SS that the government took out. I can't tell if you are talking about SS or just general taxes but, I'm going to stick to SS and medicare since that's what you feel that the government should never cut, and that's what we were talking about. The only way that you could earn the amount of SS and medicare that you put in is if you don't have major healthcare expenses while on medicare, and you made over 100k a year for the last 45 years as you said. That's the only way they could be taking nearly 10k a year for those 2 programs. (You would also have to be working for yourself over the last 45 years as the max the government takes for employed people is 6.5% up to around 100k if I remember correctly.)
Over 95% of Americans though will never put as much money into those programs as they take out. And they insist that Repubs and dems not touch it because they "earned it". In reality 95% of Americans are riding on the backs of their children's work and their children will have to put extra money in on top of that so they can have SS too.
I find it amusing that all the older republicans usually say "cut all these entitlements but don't cut SS and medicare because I earned it." The news flash is they probably didn't earn it and they are the same as dems. saying don't cut my welfare.
This post was edited on 1/17 10:58 PM by Eagleyed
Yet I could die tomorrow and my family would not get a single freaking penny I earned and put into SS for 36 years.
If they would have left SS funds alone, like they said it would be done, there would be no problem today.
Again, you would have to be extremely naive to think Washington can take care of your money better than you can OR you are extremely stupid and Washington can take care of your money better than you.
I would like nothing more than for SS to be privatized. It's true that the government has been robbing the SS fund for a while now but that does not mean that you put in more money than you take out (for almost everyone). In fact for the average middle class American if SS was balanced money they put in=money they take out they would only be able to collect about 40% of the SS and 20% of the medicare that the average American currently takes. The reason the government has been able to take money out of SS without bankrupting it was because we had a much larger younger population compared to older which is now changing. If back in the 70's there were 10 young people working for every one retiree. The government could take 2 of those working people's money and there will still be 8 workers paying for 1 retiree. Currently the system is at 4 to 1. In just 10 years its expected to be at less than 3 to 1. The SS ponzi scheme only works if there are many more workers than retirees. Or one person pays for his own retirement. In that case SS tax would need to be more than twice what it currently is to support it. In a little over 3 years it needs to be three times its current rate.
Or older people could work just another year or two and save your children from having to pay massive amounts of money into SS and retire later than you get to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will quote some from the article that gives out these facts
It's true that workers pay Medicare and Social Security taxes over the course of their careers. But have they "earned" them? Not in the sense of having paid into the system equal to what they get out.
A single man or woman who turned 65 in 2010 and earned the 2011 average U.S. wage of $43,500 will pay $58,000 in Medicare taxes and $294,000 in Social Security taxes, making for a total of $352,000,according to a 2011 report by the Urban Institute.
But the average Social Security and Medicare benefits that single man will recieve will come to about $432,000. And the single woman will get benefits worth about $475,000 out of the system.
This isn't a new development either. The same Urban Institute report shows that the average wage-earning man who turned 65 in 1980 would pay about $104,000 into the two entitlement programs, but get benefits worth $265,000. A single woman in 1980 would pay in the same amount and get benefits worth $330,000. Single earner couples fare even better. In 1980, they'd pay in the same $104,000 ? and get an average of $512,000 in benefits. Today that single earner couple would pay $352,000 into the system and get $798,000 out.
This isn't about "earning" one's own benefits. With Medicare, money being paid in isn't being held for the individual who paid for it. As the Associated Press reported last year, "Many workers may believe their Medicare payroll taxes are going for their own insurance after they retire, but the money is actually used to pay the bills of seniors currently on the program."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your money that you will take out over your lifetime of retirement will come on the backs of your children. The only way it wont is if people start having a lot more babies like they did in the 50's, which likely wont happen. The number of babies has been on a steady decline. Even if there was a lot more children we would still need jobs for them anyway, which we don't have currently. Or you could work a few more years and not rob your children. Republicans will never address this issue because retirees form a large part of their voting block. All this just proves that most older Republicans are just hypocritacal. "Don't take away my welfare checks, I earned 40% of em". Democrats won't do anything either for very obvious reasons.
This post was edited on 1/19 9:49 PM by Eagleyed
Immigration reform may help. More people on the tax roles, and don't give me the lazy Mexican thing. They are mostly very industrious and very family oriented.... Black/ Gold
They are but less people here means less unemployment. Less unemployment means less legal Americans on unemployment. It also means higher wages due to menial jobs not being able to pay dirt for wages to illegals which means less people on food stamps. Which raises the number of SS taxpayers and raises the amount they pay. When the unemployment is low we can start taking more immigrants.
Well to be fair they can't do number 1 and 2 without being a United States citizen.
But, immigration being too high creates the situation we are in now.
1) Unemployment would be much lower if we hadn't allowed the 50 million or so illegals plus their children in over the last 30 or so year.
2) Wages for unskilled work would be much higher if you didn't have to compete with illegals who will work for almost nothing. When there's a scarcity of workers wages go up till you entice people to do your work. It also puts workers in a more powerful position than the employer who is now willing to go further to get people to work for him.
Similar threads
