Jump to content

2012: The Issues


Johnny Reb
 Share

Recommended Posts


The teams are the individual parties. It makes no sense for the Republicans to support Obama's initiatives when virtually every one of them goes against the party's stated ideology. One could also argue that nearly all of Obama's initiatives could be considered detrimental to the country from the GOP's standpoint.

 

 

While this is fundamentally true, in order to effectively legislate in this nation, you have to be willing to work out compromise.

 

Its what we have seen in this nation since 1776. Yet for some reason in the last 10-12 years, especially in the last 5 this has seemed to have been ignored, which hurts the American public overall.

 

Both parties are of the ilk that if they dont get their way, they are going to take their ball and go home.

 

Nobody wins when this happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The teams are the individual parties. It makes no sense for the Republicans to support Obama's initiatives when virtually every one of them goes against the party's stated ideology. One could also argue that nearly all of Obama's initiatives could be considered detrimental to the country from the GOP's standpoint.

 

 

I'm a firm believer that there's more than one way to get things done. I have a preferred ideology, but that's not to say that the overall goal can't be achieved both ways. It just depends upon how you implement your strategy.

 

Yes, one could argue that Obama's initiatives are considered detrimental to the country from the GOP's standpoint... however what could be even more detrimental is barring him from doing anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm not disagreeing with you about any specific occurance.

 

I'm just saying it's not healthy for this nation to have only two parties that hold each other out simply because what's going on on the other side contradicts their parties beliefs.

 

What they need to do from occasion is realize that despite the fact that it contradicts their party's beliefs, not doing something about it at all can sometimes be worse. Not always, but sometimes. Yes, something like healthcare doesn't benefit there.

 

I guess an easy way to make an example of what I'm saying is by taking a look at the NHL vs the NHLPA right now. Both are radically apart in their CBA negotiations. Neither of the sides wants to even remotely compromise, but what they're failing to see is that a deadlock is a lose lose. Someone has to give in, or else it's a loss for everyone. Even if one of the results is specifically contradictory to one side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm voting for Romney.

 

Really now the one important issue to me is income taxes and Romney intends to dramatically lower mine by lowering the tax rates by 20% and eliminating taxes on interest income, dividends and capital gains. If taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains are eliminated it would also allow me to invest my money without the impact of income taxes which would be awesome. Right now every investment I own in my taxable account would be sold if it wasn't for the income taxes I would incur if I sold.

 

Obama has already raised my income taxes and intends to raise them further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand why we can't have a minimal economic government but also supportive of social freedoms...

 

Oh wait that's what Libertarians generally are.

 

f*** Mitt Romney. f*** Barack Obama. Go piss away your vote and do what's right. Maybe not this election, nor next election, nor the one following, but somewhere down the line there can be enough influence to trigger a new motion of this sham we call 'freedom of choice'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voting third party isn't "pissing away your vote." Every vote is coveted by the candidates, especially in the battleground states. If you vote third party, you are depriving the two-party candidate of that vote and basically telling him that you find his platform disagreeable.

 

If I'm not mistaken, in 2008 Ron Paul was on the ballot in one state for the general and actually got more votes than the margin of victory of Obama over McCain. It would not have changed the outcome of the election, but these scenarios definitely send a message.

 

I mean, voting third party basically tells the two major parties that their platforms aren't representative of everyone.

 

 

Whatever, clearly you know what I'm saying.

 

Most others would consider that to be pissing it away. I don't, but everyone who watches me do it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think it is that systematic. I can't even think of an example of the Democratic party exploiting a Libertarian candidate to steal Republican votes.

It is that systematic. I don't have the link with me but third party candidates receive funding from the party using them.

 

Sure it is, but that doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do.

 

Sure there might be some exploitation as well.

 

Luckily for me, social issues are more important at this point in my life. So I'd be happy with Obama winning and knowing I voted for Gary Johnson. That might change down the line once I'm out of school, paying taxes, etc. but I hope some 12 years down the line this country can pull its head out of its ass and make an effort to split from the two party system. Doesn't look hopeful, but the slim ray of light that is Ron Paul is making a big difference on the youth I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama(obviously) for the following reasons:

 

-Civil rights-Dont ask dont tell gone, likely to see DOMA gone because of refusal of admin to defend it.

 

-Taxes-believe Romney will shift tax burden to middle class by capping deductions.

 

-Shifting federal spending from domestic programs and grants I support, like Pell Grants, while increasing military spending.

 

-Environment-Like Bush, I believe Romney will shift enforcement of environmental laws away from protection to easing restricting on companies that maybe harming environment.

 

-Medicare-staunchly oppose the desire to transition Medicare into a private based system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issues are important to this country, we need to address them.

 

Dr. Beinfest has done nothing to help the plight of Philipino Tilt-a-Whirl operators, who are the backbone of this country.

 

As president, I will do things to help people, and will make sure I leave this country in a manner we all can agree on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Taxes-believe Romney will shift tax burden to middle class by capping deductions.

 

 

Do you know how taxes work?

 

 

 

Only in the sense that I pay them every single year, complete my own tax returns with my wife, itemize deductions, calculate and pay an alternative min. tax, pay a marriage penalty because my wife and I are both high income earners, and earn little to no income from investments at this stage in my life so do no benefit from the lower rate for capital gains.

 

Im pretty sure you dont know how taxes work. The middle class benefits immensely from the mortgage interest deduction, deduction for state and local taxes, employer-provided health care, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and child care. If you cap that or limit itemized deductions, you have now raised taxes on the middle class. Reducing the rate itself by 20%, from say 28% to 22%, doesn’t make up for that. Study after study backs that up.

 

But most tax deductions don’t benefit the wealthy because they are phased out of a lot of them. Nor do the benefit from the tax credits that Romney has said he will eliminate. The wealthy pay the alternative min. tax and the estate tax. Romney would get rid of both taxes. So they don’t get affected by the eliminated tax deductions, which they never got in the first place, but they do benefit from a raw reduction and elimination of the AMT and estate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issues are important to this country, we need to address them.

 

Dr. Beinfest has done nothing to help the plight of Philipino Tilt-a-Whirl operators, who are the backbone of this country.

 

As president, I will do things to help people, and will make sure I leave this country in a manner we all can agree on.

 

 

Sweet someone to run against!

 

I will save the pacific northwest tree octopus! THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST TREE OCTOPUS PEOPLE!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Taxes-believe Romney will shift tax burden to middle class by capping deductions.

 

 

Do you know how taxes work?

 

 

 

Only in the sense that I pay them every single year, complete my own tax returns with my wife, itemize deductions, calculate and pay an alternative min. tax, pay a marriage penalty because my wife and I are both high income earners, and earn little to no income from investments at this stage in my life so do no benefit from the lower rate for capital gains.

 

Im pretty sure you dont know how taxes work. The middle class benefits immensely from the mortgage interest deduction, deduction for state and local taxes, employer-provided health care, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and child care. If you cap that or limit itemized deductions, you have now raised taxes on the middle class. Reducing the rate itself by 20%, from say 28% to 22%, doesn’t make up for that. Study after study backs that up.

 

But most tax deductions don’t benefit the wealthy because they are phased out of a lot of them. Nor do the benefit from the tax credits that Romney has said he will eliminate. The wealthy pay the alternative min. tax and the estate tax. Romney would get rid of both taxes. So they don’t get affected by the eliminated tax deductions, which they never got in the first place, but they do benefit from a raw reduction and elimination of the AMT and estate.

\

 

Except one can cap mortgage deductions in such a way that middle class persons would be unaffected. A $300k mortgage could provide all the deduction it does now, whereas a $1,500,000 loan would not.

 

Right now we have a system designed to reward friends and punish enemies, it is the reason why it is so large. Simplifying the code (to remove some exemptions) and then lowering the base rates (to keep the cost to the taxpayer the same) can only help the economy. Businesses spend a fortune doing taxes, we have low income people with basically no itemized deductions going to Jackson Hewitt / HR Block to do what should instead be 2nd grade arithmetic, middle class people are being hit by the AMT, etc.

 

There is no need for it at all. The goal of taxes should be to provide revenue, not selective advantages. If we want to help a business or industry or demographic, just subsidize it with a law that sees the light of day instead of being hidden in a labyrinth of regulations and tax codes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Taxes-believe Romney will shift tax burden to middle class by capping deductions.

 

 

Do you know how taxes work?

 

 

 

Only in the sense that I pay them every single year, complete my own tax returns with my wife, itemize deductions, calculate and pay an alternative min. tax, pay a marriage penalty because my wife and I are both high income earners, and earn little to no income from investments at this stage in my life so do no benefit from the lower rate for capital gains.

 

Im pretty sure you dont know how taxes work. The middle class benefits immensely from the mortgage interest deduction, deduction for state and local taxes, employer-provided health care, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and child care. If you cap that or limit itemized deductions, you have now raised taxes on the middle class. Reducing the rate itself by 20%, from say 28% to 22%, doesn’t make up for that. Study after study backs that up.

 

But most tax deductions don’t benefit the wealthy because they are phased out of a lot of them. Nor do the benefit from the tax credits that Romney has said he will eliminate. The wealthy pay the alternative min. tax and the estate tax. Romney would get rid of both taxes. So they don’t get affected by the eliminated tax deductions, which they never got in the first place, but they do benefit from a raw reduction and elimination of the AMT and estate.

\

 

Except one can cap mortgage deductions in such a way that middle class persons would be unaffected. A $300k mortgage could provide all the deduction it does now, whereas a $1,500,000 loan would not.

 

Right now we have a system designed to reward friends and punish enemies, it is the reason why it is so large. Simplifying the code (to remove some exemptions) and then lowering the base rates (to keep the cost to the taxpayer the same) can only help the economy. Businesses spend a fortune doing taxes, we have low income people with basically no itemized deductions going to Jackson Hewitt / HR Block to do what should instead be 2nd grade arithmetic, middle class people are being hit by the AMT, etc.

 

There is no need for it at all. The goal of taxes should be to provide revenue, not selective advantages. If we want to help a business or industry or demographic, just subsidize it with a law that sees the light of day instead of being hidden in a labyrinth of regulations and tax codes.

 

First, you, being a dick, asked me if I even understood how taxes work. Which is why I explained where I was coming from.

 

Second, Romney is not just capping the home mortgage deduction. He is capping all deductions. So yeah, it is much higher than youre claiming by when you just isolate it to a 300k mortgage. It includes eliminating tax credits, which are huge for the middle class and poor, and capping other deductions.

 

Third, analysis after analysis says it will raise taxes on the middle class. The only analysis that says it wont is from a right wing think tank that does work for Romney's campaign.

 

Fourth, he isn't just eliminating deductions. He is eliminating the estate tax and the AMT.

 

Fifth, there is zero evidence that the AMT mostly hits the middle class. Find me anything that backs up that false statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I was being a dick.

 

He is putting out hypothetical limits. Recumbents are always short on details, because they are not in office and are trying to get in, it is when the incumbent is also short on details that you have to look out.

 

Romney isn't capping anything yet. He is proposing lowering rates and simplifying the code, which can raise revenue from higher income individuals without impacting businesses that pay on the individual rate. I own a business as a sideline and I do the taxes on it, the tax code is a massive pain in the ass that consumes dozens of man-hours from me that I could apply to creating product for my business.

 

I did not say that the AMT "mostly" hits anything. But unless you think individuals making less than $50k and couples making less than $75K are not middle class, then the AMT hits members of the middle class. The AMT should never apply to a person in the middle class, it should especially never apply to a family that receives aid from SCHIP (which is does in 9 states). A person should never be considered "high income" and "in need of income assistance" at the same time. That is the kind of bullcrap our tax code produces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure on the Senate, I was going to stick with Nelson on behalf of NASA, but it looks like Mack is also big on backing NASA - at least on behalf of Space Coast voters. I will probably decide in the booth.

 

 

This is interesting to me and I'm curious.

 

Have you agreed with Nelson on how he has voted on the most important issues over the past few years such as the stimulus, obamacare, Dodd-Frank and judicial nominations?

 

How confident are you that you'll be happy with how Nelson votes in the upcoming fiscal cliff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I was being a dick.

 

He is putting out hypothetical limits. Recumbents are always short on details, because they are not in office and are trying to get in, it is when the incumbent is also short on details that you have to look out.

 

Romney isn't capping anything yet. He is proposing lowering rates and simplifying the code, which can raise revenue from higher income individuals without impacting businesses that pay on the individual rate. I own a business as a sideline and I do the taxes on it, the tax code is a massive pain in the ass that consumes dozens of man-hours from me that I could apply to creating product for my business.

 

I did not say that the AMT "mostly" hits anything. But unless you think individuals making less than $50k and couples making less than $75K are not middle class, then the AMT hits members of the middle class. The AMT should never apply to a person in the middle class, it should especially never apply to a family that receives aid from SCHIP (which is does in 9 states). A person should never be considered "high income" and "in need of income assistance" at the same time. That is the kind of bullcrap our tax code produces.

 

AMT isn't scaled to keep up with inflation, so you are right that it is now affecting a lot of middle class families. And that's completely the wrong use for it. They either need to vote in scaling or else get rid of it. It seems like it was a good idea when it begun, but it's getting to be a borderline disaster, and it's only going to get worse (assuming continued inflation, which will certainly be the case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...