Romney vs. Obama

[ylexot]

The country's fiscal issues started much more than 12 years ago. When was the last time we weren't in debt? I'd love to have a constitutional amendment requiring a 2/3 vote to go into debt and the debt has to be paid off during the next fiscal year.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk

 

[A.Nonymous]

i filed my extention about an hour ago. i'm paying far more than 12K.

i don't have taxes taken out of my paycheck because i refuse to give the govt an interest free loan.

i save to pay my entire bill at the end of the tax period. i save in an IRA and a 401K. i have other investments that i pay into every month also.

i live a modst lifestyle. saving isn't hard if you aren't a freakin' idiot.

Also, that's $12k per person. So if you're married, you can double that. A family of four would pay $48k a year in taxes. Needless to say there would be rioting in the street if everyone had to pay their mathematical fair share. I think when most people say that rich people should pay their "fair share" they really mean they think rich people should pay more than what they're paying now. No real logic behind it beyond that.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Interesting view from Romney's book on stay-at-home Moms, they're OK if rich, but bums if not.

Romney's fundraiser secrets give the Obama campaign a new plan of attack - The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur // Current TV

 

[breadnatty08]

Interesting view from Romney's book on stay-at-home Moms, they're OK if rich, but bums if not.

Romney's fundraiser secrets give the Obama campaign a new plan of attack - The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur // Current TV

Yeah, the guy really is just out of touch with your average American.
(Also, if you're going to edit your post for "grammer", you should probably spell grammar right )

 

[copestag]

Interesting view from Romney's book on stay-at-home Moms, they're OK if rich, but bums if not.

Romney's fundraiser secrets give the Obama campaign a new plan of attack - The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur // Current TV

I could agree with this train of thought to an extent.....

nobody is telling the poor they shouldnt be stay at home moms....... just telling them dont ask me to pay for your big screen tv while you choose to be a stay at home mom..... if you want to stay at home then live by your own means

Yeah, the guy really is just out of touch with your average American.
(Also, if you're going to edit your post for "grammer", you should probably spell grammar right. )

fixed that for ya

 

[breadnatty08]

For anyone who's interested, Jon Stewart tore up Romney for those comments last night on the Daily Show.

 

[alanfine]

this year we're in for another fight only by the wealthiest that can afford a campaign

 

[FJR1300]

let the strong survive and the weak die.

So when your parents become old and weak, suffering various illness or disease you'll just let them die?

Leave babies born with physical or mental impairments to die?

Your child suffers a major injury in a car accident and you can't afford the co-pay, so just let 'em die?

Make every parent pay for their children's education out of pocket from Kindergarten through college? No taxpayer funded public schools, no student loans carried by the taxpayer?

Let the energy and utility companies charge whatever they like because hey, that's survival of the fittest after all.

Or should survival of the fittest not apply to the owner of a business?

Survival of the fittest sounds great on the surface, until you actually think about how your life would really be under that ideology.

The system we have in place is far from perfect, and there are many people working the welfare system, there are also a lot of people in DC and on Wall Street that are working the system.

Many of us wouldn't be here today if the government hadn't stepped in and helped save people from the depression and the dust bowl. Very unlikely that this country would be the financial capital of the world. Could have just let those millions of people die and let the land stay unusable.


Although it doesn't sound like it, I despise big government. But I can accept the fact that some government intervention and the bailing out of people and giant corporations alike is sometimes needed for the overall health of the nation.

 

[A.Nonymous]

There's a certain point where you're no longer helping someone, you're hurting them. If your 30 year old kid is living on your sofa and is unemployed and you keep paying for them are you really helping them? Or are you hurting them by not making them take responsibility for their actions? This is where we are in this country. We've gone far beyond the point of helping people and people are now "kept" by the government. So if you talk about cutting this program or that program people freak out the same way your kid would if you told them you weren't going to feed them any more and they needed to get a job to pay for their own food. WTF?? I can't do that!!! Feed myself?!? I'm not capable!!! You're asking me to starve!! It's the same reaction.

 

[ylexot]

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have"
- Gerald Ford

 

[cmybliss]

O probably shouldn't jump in here as the condescension coming across in some of these comments is pretty appalling. I can't say whether it is intentional or just a product of written words not conveying tone.

With that said, a survival of the fittest society does not work. A country is a community. In order for a community to function properly and run smoothly, we must look out for the least capable among us. We cannot let the very young, sick, mentally and physically impaired and elderly perish on the streets. Besides being morally wrong, it's bad for economic growth and the overall health of the community.

A wholly capitalistic society does not function as a society. A wholly socialistic society will not work either. What's needed is a blending of the two, wherein people are rewarded for hard work, creativity and innovention, and those less able to care for themselves are helped. Not an easy proposition I know.

 

[FJR1300]

Agreed, anon & ylexot.

I don't advocate the government 'giving' anyone everything they want.

But I'd like to see alternative ideas suggested beyond the short-sighted "survival of the fittest" approach.

I'm not quite as upset as most by the poor people that are leeching off the government, because there are plenty of wealthy and powerful people that are not playing by the rules either and that take healthy government handouts; I'm equally disturbed by both ends of the spectrum.

For example; the GOP is throwing themselves a nice little party in Tampa in August, we the taxpayers are footing the bill for all of the added security personnel, installation of security cameras and beautification of the city to the tune of $50M!

Why on earth should anyone not involved or interested in their little shindig have to contribute to that whopper of a bill?

Suddenly that mother on welfare with 8 kids and big screen tv doesn't look that much different from the arrogant politicians taking a government hand out to have a party.

(To be clear, the Democratic party is just as guilty)

 

[A.Nonymous]

O probably shouldn't jump in here as the condescension coming across in some of these comments is pretty appalling. I can't say whether it is intentional or just a product of written words not conveying tone.

With that said, a survival of the fittest society does not work. A country is a community. In order for a community to function properly and run smoothly, we must look out for the least capable among us. We cannot let the very young, sick, mentally and physically impaired and elderly perish on the streets. Besides being morally wrong, it's bad for economic growth and the overall health of the community.

A wholly capitalistic society does not function as a society. A wholly socialistic society will not work either. What's needed is a blending of the two, wherein people are rewarded for hard work, creativity and innovation, and those less able to care for themselves are helped. Not an easy proposition I know.

I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't take care of the young or the mentally impaired. You could argue that, depending on the circumstances, some of the sick, elderly and even some of the physically impaired are unable to care for themselves because of their own decisions. If I fail to save a single dime over the course of my lifetime and now I'm 80 and cannot take care of myself does society have an obligation to take care of me? If I don't buy health insurance and disability insurance and then get in a car wreck, does society have an obligation to take care of me and provide for me for the rest of my life?

The problem with the system now is that there are a lot of people who are capable of taking care of themselves don't. It's much easier to lay on mom's couch all day than it is to actually go out and try to fix your life. That can be an extremely painful process as we all know. Some people don't want that pain and because someone is footing their bill, why should they go through it?

 

[ylexot]

Agreed, anon & ylexot.

I don't advocate the government 'giving' anyone everything they want.

But I'd like to see alternative ideas suggested beyond the short-sighted "survival of the fittest" approach.

That's where charity comes in. You can't expect someone in Washington DC to know the situation of every person in the country. That's why caring for those in need is better suited to those closest to the person(s) in need: the family, neighbors, community. They are the ones who know the situation and can judge if the person is truly in need, if they are squandering the help they receive, etc. Using the federal government to help those in need is like using an earth mover to dig a hole for a plant. It might work, but it's not the best tool for the job.

 

[FJR1300]

That's where charity comes in. You can't expect someone in Washington DC to know the situation of every person in the country. That's why caring for those in need is better suited to those closest to the person(s) in need: the family, neighbors, community. They are the ones who know the situation and can judge if the person is truly in need, if they are squandering the help they receive, etc. Using the federal government to help those in need is like using an earth mover to dig a hole for a plant. It might work, but it's not the best tool for the job.

Charity? Sounds a little utopian to me, and highly subjective. My idea of charity and yours could vary wildly. And when Wall Street creates a meltdown, or a corporation lays off thousands, etc,etc, we all find much less if any disposable income and the charity dries up. So we have starving people, that will rob and kill you to survive. Maybe taxes aren't such a bad idea after all?

Maybe the extremely wealthy are paying far more than their proportionate share so that they can go outdoors without being robbed and killed?

Survival of the fittest is really survival of the strongest, more immoral, desperate and opportunistic. Think Mad Max if you will.


Perhaps using a city administered assistance program would be more productive, but would still require federal funding as many areas could not financially support these programs on their own.

It seems that most of the people that are against the various forms of welfare are concentrating on the abusers of the system and not giving much thought to those that have a real need and are truly helpless, many times through no fault of their own. Are we really that willing to punish the deserving in order to catch the fraudulent claimants?

Any business has to expect a certain level of inefficiency and account and adjust for it. It is the nature of business with human involvement. By paring down the c-note sized waste at the top we can free up funding to find and eliminate the individual nickel & dime waste at the bottom.

I'd be interested in hearing a view and solution on the handouts to the wealthy, such as the $50M to the GOP convention.

 

[A.Nonymous]

If I could wave a magic wand, I'd put all of the social programs in the hands of state and local governments and keep the feds out of it altogether. We have far more control over our state and local governments than we do to the feds. If I have a problem with how my city councilman is running things, his/her office is right downtown and I can drive over there and yell at them. Plus, I know where he lives. And city council meetings are open and within driving distance of me. That guy is way more accountable to me than some schmuck in Congress is.

 

[ElasticNinja]

That's where charity comes in. You can't expect someone in Washington DC to know the situation of every person in the country. That's why caring for those in need is better suited to those closest to the person(s) in need: the family, neighbors, community. They are the ones who know the situation and can judge if the person is truly in need, if they are squandering the help they receive, etc. Using the federal government to help those in need is like using an earth mover to dig a hole for a plant. It might work, but it's not the best tool for the job.

Enjoy giving 50% of your income to charity and having tons wasted on administration (Charities are necessary for plenty of things, but they tend not to come near the efficiency of government programs, and also tend to be rooted in certain areas/religions, unlike governments.

 

[ylexot]

Enjoy giving 50% of your income to charity and having tons wasted on administration (Charities are necessary for plenty of things, but they tend not to come near the efficiency of government programs, and also tend to be rooted in certain areas/religions, unlike governments.

You think government is efficient! LMFAO!

There are lots of charities. Some are efficient and some are not. Luckily, there are ways to find out which ones are which (i.e. CharityWatch - Helping Donors Make Informed Giving Decisions) and you can choose which one(s) to give to or not give to. Or you can go the direct route and give directly from yourself to the person in need. Zero overhead, zero waste, directed charity.

With the government, you have no choice. Pay or go to jail. You have no insight into how well it works and it doesn't matter...you must pay anyway.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Enjoy giving 50% of your income to charity and having tons wasted on administration (Charities are necessary for plenty of things, but they tend not to come near the efficiency of government programs, and also tend to be rooted in certain areas/religions, unlike governments.

I'm having a bad day and the idea of the government being efficient at all made me lol. A heartfelt thanks for that.

Anyway, as ylexlot has pointed out, there are certainly some extremely inefficient charities. There are also some extremely efficient charities. Some charities are well run and do a lot of good and others are little more than thin veils for political lobbying groups. Fortunately, charities are required by law in some places and strongly encouraged in others to be extremely transparent. Some are and some aren't. But there are many, many tools out there that will give you info on what charities are worth supporting and what one's aren't.

As mentioned, there is always the option of giving directly. Hopefully when you give directly, you are well informed of exactly where your money is going. If not, there's no one to blame but yourself so you won't get a lot of sympathy from me. With the feds, the transparency is often not there, you don't have a choice of whether to give or not and your money is likely not going where you want it to. There you have my sympathy.

 

[TxGoat]

Yes.
Who's not paying federal income tax? ? USATODAY.com
So, half of tax filers pay no taxes and ~3/4 of them are poor. Another way of saying that is ~3/8 of tax filers are poor people who pay no taxes.

A couple of things, 1 income tax isn't the only form of taxation, 2 if you can't manage a living wage then why would you care about "paying your fair share"?

There's a book out about a woman that went undercover as a Walmart employee for a few months. She removed herself from all her savings, all the money she made as a writer, and tried to live as a full-time Walmart employee. She said she found herself struggling to live even a meager existence. She said the only solace she found was knowing that her situation was only for the sake of her book. She couldn't fathom working there for longer than she had to.

I'm not arrogant enough nor bold enough to make such a blanket statement. You're more than welcome to go to each of these people and tell them that they're not paying their "Fair share". When I was younger my parents saw fit to have me experience the meaning of real work and I'm not about to pretend that while I'm making a decent salary pecking away at a computer or swapping out some computer hardware, that it's "hard work".

I understand that some people have been sheltered from real work for most of their lives, and that's fine if that's who you are, but to look down your nose at people that work hard to barely eek out a living and accuse them of not "paying their fair share", that attitude is the VERY REASON that the GOP has been slowly losing favor with mainstream America.

 

[TxGoat]

Yeah, the guy really is just out of touch with your average American.
(Also, if you're going to edit your post for "grammer", you should probably spell grammar right )

Maybe he's from the south. His "grammer" (nana for the Yankees) saw his English and made him correct it...

 

[A.Nonymous]

A couple of things, 1 income tax isn't the only form of taxation, 2 if you can't manage a living wage then why would you care about "paying your fair share"?

There's a book out about a woman that went undercover as a Walmart employee for a few months. She removed herself from all her savings, all the money she made as a writer, and tried to live as a full-time Walmart employee. She said she found herself struggling to live even a meager existence. She said the only solace she found was knowing that her situation was only for the sake of her book. She couldn't fathom working there for longer than she had to.

I'm not arrogant enough nor bold enough to make such a blanket statement. You're more than welcome to go to each of these people and tell them that they're not paying their "Fair share". When I was younger my parents saw fit to have me experience the meaning of real work and I'm not about to pretend that while I'm making a decent salary pecking away at a computer or swapping out some computer hardware, that it's "hard work".

I understand that some people have been sheltered from real work for most of their lives, and that's fine if that's who you are, but to look down your nose at people that work hard to barely eek out a living and accuse them of not "paying their fair share", that attitude is the VERY REASON that the GOP has been slowly losing favor with mainstream America.

I don't buy that thesis completely. I personally know someone who works at Wal-mart and has worked there for many, many, many years without complaint. What is more likely is that the author could not live at the standard she was accustomed to living at while working at Wal-mart. That much I'd buy. I couldn't maintain my standard of living on what Wal-mart pays. My parents wouldn't be able to maintain their standard of living on what I make. Yet I don't consider myself poor or struggling.

 

[TxGoat]

O probably shouldn't jump in here as the condescension coming across in some of these comments is pretty appalling. I can't say whether it is intentional or just a product of written words not conveying tone.

With that said, a survival of the fittest society does not work. A country is a community. In order for a community to function properly and run smoothly, we must look out for the least capable among us. We cannot let the very young, sick, mentally and physically impaired and elderly perish on the streets. Besides being morally wrong, it's bad for economic growth and the overall health of the community.

A wholly capitalistic society does not function as a society. A wholly socialistic society will not work either. What's needed is a blending of the two, wherein people are rewarded for hard work, creativity and innovention, and those less able to care for themselves are helped. Not an easy proposition I know.

Damn libural!! /sarcasm


Actually a good post, but you'll always have some "Survival of the fittest" jackass types that ironically know nothing about survival (and typically aren't very fit---See Rush Limbaugh types) that will scream "Socialist!" or some other word they've been programmed to scream out ("Commie", "bleeding-heart", etc. are other such phrases). The sad truth is this planet would have difficulty sustaining our exponentially growing population even if we did manage to put our differences aside and take steps forward together as a species. Our intra-species conflict is only going to hasten the inevitable. At that point, "Survival of the fittest" will be a cute little anecdote.

 

[TxGoat]

I don't buy that thesis completely. I personally know someone who works at Wal-mart and has worked there for many, many, many years without complaint. What is more likely is that the author could not live at the standard she was accustomed to living at while working at Wal-mart. That much I'd buy. I couldn't maintain my standard of living on what Wal-mart pays. My parents wouldn't be able to maintain their standard of living on what I make. Yet I don't consider myself poor or struggling.

The author did her work as a cashier IIRC. I'm sure there are management positions or other positions that are a little more favorable. She went in at the entry level at Walmart to prove that the entry level wage isn't really a "living wage". You could most likely eek out an existence on that wage, but do it for a few years and then have someone accuse you of not paying your "fair share" and then tell me that it's fulfilling.


My argument has more to do with who can handle an increase in their taxes (or afford to be taxed what they used to be taxed in the past, in this instance) more. It's easier to sacrifice being able to buy the biggest yacht made, to "only" being able to afford the 2nd biggest yacht vs being able to pay the mortgage AND put food on the table vs being able to put food on the table but worrying about an eviction notice.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The author did her work as a cashier IIRC. I'm sure there are management positions or other positions that are a little more favorable. She went in at the entry level at Walmart to prove that the entry level wage isn't really a "living wage". You could most likely eek out an existence on that wage, but do it for a few years and then have someone accuse you of not paying your "fair share" and then tell me that it's fulfilling.

This lady I know is a cashier and has been for years and years. I have no idea how much she makes, but I'd be shocked if it was more than $15 an hour. I would guess it's closer to $10-12. Again, it all depends on your standard of living. My parents eat out all the time at nice, sit down restaurants. They frequent the mall on a weekly basis, constantly buy all kinds of crap they don't need and generally go through money like water. My dad is a high income earner so they can afford this lifestyle. I eat at home, save up money for months before I buy gadgets and rarely drop money on pointless crap. (Though I have been guilty of buying pointless crap from time to time.) My lifestyle is different than theirs. My friend the cashier probably couldn't afford to live the way I do. I couldn't afford to live the way my parents do. It's all about lifestyle.

The "fair share" argument was a big facetious on my part. Obviously expecting everyone to pay $12k per head is a little ridiculous. However when you look at people like Obama who pay well over $100k a year in taxes and you claim that they're not paying their "fair share" when schmucks like me are paying far less than that is a bit ridiculous as well when you step back and look at it from a (hopefully) objective point of view. Warren Buffet paid $7 mil (by his own account) in taxes. Yet people, himself included, claim he's not paying his fair share. Seems a bit ridiculous.