1st Term Obama Approval

[jericho]

Jericho, you are part of society. Part being in society is paying tax and if you are against that then I'll have to assume you are also against schools, roads and the military. And it baffles me that people don't think tax for healthcare is important. I'd say, next to funding fro schools, it is the most important tax there is.

I'm relatively young but think I have much better grasp on history than jericho.

When did I say I was against taxes?

[emmiedahl]

So you are not against taxes, just against taxing the wealthy? :lol:

If you want to look at wasteful spending, look at your own party. Republican negotiators walked out of budgeting sessions last summer because someone suggested that the following programs be cut:

**The Department of Transportation program that provides interest-free loans for purchasing corporate jets

**The Department of Energy program that rewards oil companies for extracting oil in the United States and overseas through several different types of government rebates

**The Department of Agriculture program that pays companies 45 cents for every gallon of corn ethanol they blend into gasoline

**The Department of Commerce program that incentivizes people to become hedge fund managers by sending them an annual U.S. treasury check for 20 percent of the cut they take from managing investors’ portfolios

**The Department of Housing and Urban Development program that matches people’s mortgage interest payments, which is targeted to provide the most help for people earning more than $379,150

The Senate Republican Leader said that negotiations would only continue if these cuts were not even discussed and asked to cut Medicare instead.

Is that what you call a free market, Jericho? Zero interest loans and mortgage matching for the wealthy?

(added: I copied and pasted the list, don't want to be accused of freejinger fraud :))

[debrand]

I might regret asking this. What regulations on smoking would Coburn's remove? In some countries, cigarette companies target children. There was a documentary on Vanguard about their practices.

edited to correct the Senator's name

[emmiedahl]

He has historically been against all regulation. In the US, the companies did target children, and they lied about what chemicals they added to the tobacco. Colburn is against ALL tobacco regulation, including measures to stop lying and victimization of children.

[jericho]

So you are not against taxes, just against taxing the wealthy? :lol:

If you want to look at wasteful spending, look at your own party. Republican negotiators walked out of budgeting sessions last summer because someone suggested that the following programs be cut:

**The Department of Transportation program that provides interest-free loans for purchasing corporate jets

**The Department of Energy program that rewards oil companies for extracting oil in the United States and overseas through several different types of government rebates

**The Department of Agriculture program that pays companies 45 cents for every gallon of corn ethanol they blend into gasoline

**The Department of Commerce program that incentivizes people to become hedge fund managers by sending them an annual U.S. treasury check for 20 percent of the cut they take from managing investors’ portfolios

**The Department of Housing and Urban Development program that matches people’s mortgage interest payments, which is targeted to provide the most help for people earning more than $379,150

The Senate Republican Leader said that negotiations would only continue if these cuts were not even discussed and asked to cut Medicare instead.

Is that what you call a free market, Jericho? Zero interest loans and mortgage matching for the wealthy?

(added: I copied and pasted the list, don't want to be accused of freejinger fraud :))

I'm not against taxing the wealthy. I'm against taxing them MORE than anyone else.

Congress is full of stupid political and wasteful actions. I do not agree with it no matter the party.

[jericho]

He has historically been against all regulation. In the US, the companies did target children, and they lied about what chemicals they added to the tobacco. Colburn is against ALL tobacco regulation, including measures to stop lying and victimization of children.

May I ask where you are getting all your info on Coburn?

[debrand]

May I ask where you are getting all your info on Coburn?

Can you provide a link that explains his view on tobacco regulation.

[emmiedahl]

I got the information on Coburn's beliefs from his own web page. The forced sterilization story was covered on a large number of mainstream news outlets, so I got that particular information from those.

I agree that our legislators are all very attached to their pork. That's why I don't vote based on that. I vote based on social justice.

Jericho, all of the programs I discussed above and many, many others benefit the rich disproportionately. Our society is set up to benefit them disproportionately. They are already getting wealth from other people's labor--people who are generally underpaid and underinsured. The wealthy need a healthy workforce; many employers feel that universal health care would actually stimulate our economy, not to mention that it would cost less than the system we currently have.

If you want to tax the wealthy as much as the middle class, why do you support a lower tax rate on unearned income? Shouldn't it at least be at the same tax rate as earned income? Most ultra-wealthy people get most of their money from unearned income, so they are generally paying a lower tax rate than the middle class. How is that okay with you?

[emmiedahl]

His voting record shows that he has voted against every tobacco-related and every consumer protection bill that has been in Congress since he entered. http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/22085/

To be fair, not a lot have hit the Senate recently. He stated that tobacco should not be regulated except by the ATF--which means no consumer protections basically. There was a huge misunderstanding a few years ago when Coburn said that regulating tobacco was banning tobacco, and a quote that was meant sarcastically was misconstrued as him wanting to make it illegal. At this point, Coburn clarified that he believed Congress does not have the right to regulate tobacco and that matters regarding it should be handled only by the ATF, which only regulates trafficking and transport. This means label warnings, publicity of dangerous ingredients, and the ban on marketing to children would not be in effect. http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/artic ... nTom290436

[jericho]

If you want to tax the wealthy as much as the middle class, why do you support a lower tax rate on unearned income? Shouldn't it at least be at the same tax rate as earned income? Most ultra-wealthy people get most of their money from unearned income, so they are generally paying a lower tax rate than the middle class. How is that okay with you?

I think 16% is a respectable amount for unearned income. Especially since the typical american can invest in a Roth IRA and pay 0% on capital gains through that.

[wtfrenchtoast]

Life is not fair, but our country will be better if we provide a minimum standard for all citizens.

We are not arguing about method. The need is there, and the wealthy either cannot or will not meet it. That is a fact.

The only possible way to resolve the situation is for the government to offer more help. Fact. The only way for the government to afford this is to collect more tax revenue. Fact. It is more fair to tax unearned income from people who can afford it than to take earned income from people who are already struggling. Also a fact.

To say, "let's go back in time, let's adopt policies under which the poor starved and died in the streets, and let's just hope they work this time. Because I don't want to take a small portion of someone's unearned income. They did not earn it--by definition--but I think they still deserve another yacht more than a hundred children deserve medical treatment." That is not a method of helping the poor. You want class warfare? That's it. That's what it looks like. Letting one person's luxuries be more important than another person's needs.

I couldn't agree more. I consider myself probably closer to the right-of-center in terms of financial issues like this. I'm not socialist-leaning like many members of this board. I don't mind that millionaires exist and I don't want to "punish" them with more taxes. However, I don't understand how anyone can deny the fact that EVERYONE in this country should have access to basics: education, food, a place to live, and healthcare. If government regulation is what it takes to make this happen, so be it. As much as I believe in hard work and all that, I can't deny what others have said. No wealthy person in this country did it all on their own. They received help from society in some way and they should pay society back for that. Not to mention the workers under them, without whom they would have nothing. It seems obvious to me that the only moral choice is to make sure that ALL of your workers are able to take care of themselves and their families in basic ways. I don't understand why having the government involved is a bad thing, because otherwise companies will. Not. Do it.

[emmiedahl]

So you think the wealthy should be paying less than the middle class, basically. Well, I don't agree with you and I never will.

Roth IRAs are for a limited amount, and they cannot be used for anything other than retirement without penalties. I cannot believe you will compare the meager retirement savings of a working class family to the hundreds of millions that Mitt Romney has invested in foreign accounts. You can only invest $5000 a year in a Roth IRA! It is not even in the same ballpark.

Why do you think a middle class family who works two full time jobs should be taxed at a higher rate than a billionaire living on inherited wealth?

[jericho]

I can't deny what others have said. No wealthy person in this country did it all on their own. They received help from society in some way and they should pay society back for that. Not to mention the workers under them, without whom they would have nothing. It seems obvious to me that the only moral choice is to make sure that ALL of your workers are able to take care of themselves and their families in basic ways. I don't understand why having the government involved is a bad thing, because otherwise companies will. Not. Do it.

But you see, the problem with this is that goes against the freedom that this country was established on. It's nice to see a professional athlete giving back to his community and places they may have come from, but when you start legislating that, then I have a problem.

[debrand]

But you see, the problem with this is that goes against the freedom that this country was established on. It's nice to see a professional athlete giving back to his community and places they may have come from, but when you start legislating that, then I have a problem.

You're going to have to be specific because I don't see how taxing the wealthy at a higher perentage hurts our freedom. It isn't as if my freedom of speech, freedom to not undergo inhuman treatment or freedom to own guns will be taken away because Romney pays a bit more in taxes.

[jericho]

So you think the wealthy should be paying less than the middle class, basically. Well, I don't agree with you and I never will.

Roth IRAs are for a limited amount, and they cannot be used for anything other than retirement without penalties. I cannot believe you will compare the meager retirement savings of a working class family to the hundreds of millions that Mitt Romney has invested in foreign accounts. You can only invest $5000 a year in a Roth IRA! It is not even in the same ballpark.

Why do you think a middle class family who works two full time jobs should be taxed at a higher rate than a billionaire living on inherited wealth?

Yet $5000 a year is about the max that many families could invest. And they are able to do it tax free. Anyone else who invests in anything else will be taxes around 16%.

Roth IRA Meager? If you invest $5000 per year starting at age 25, with a typical 8% return and 4% inflation, you will have $1,165,000.00 at age 65.

[jericho]

You're going to have to be specific because I don't see how taxing the wealthy at a higher perentage hurts our freedom. It isn't as if my freedom of speech, freedom to not undergo inhuman treatment or freedom to own guns will be taken away because Romney pays a bit more in taxes.

He said they should have to pay society back for the help they received. Forcing someone to pay something back that isn't under contract such as a loan, goes against freedom.

[Austin]

I couldn't agree more. I consider myself probably closer to the right-of-center in terms of financial issues like this. I'm not socialist-leaning like many members of this board. I don't mind that millionaires exist and I don't want to "punish" them with more taxes. However, I don't understand how anyone can deny the fact that EVERYONE in this country should have access to basics: education, food, a place to live, and healthcare. If government regulation is what it takes to make this happen, so be it. As much as I believe in hard work and all that, I can't deny what others have said. No wealthy person in this country did it all on their own. They received help from society in some way and they should pay society back for that. Not to mention the workers under them, without whom they would have nothing. It seems obvious to me that the only moral choice is to make sure that ALL of your workers are able to take care of themselves and their families in basic ways. I don't understand why having the government involved is a bad thing, because otherwise companies will. Not. Do it.

ITA, except that I don't want to punish millionaires at all. It's not about punishment; it's about math. I don't think going back to the tax rates we had in the 1990s under Clinton would be a punishment, as overall, it was a time of growth.

I am not a millionaire (hardly - not even close), but our combined income puts us in the top quintile of earners and we pay plenty of taxes. Even with three kids we can still claim and our W-4 exemptions set at 0, and all the typical deductions (meager mortgage interest, real estate taxes, some tuition credit stuff,, etc), I still need to write a check for $2,300 in April to the federal government. And another $630 to the state. It's a bit of a bummer and no one likes paying big bills, but I actually don't resent paying it. It's our fair share.

We're still going on vacation this year, I'm travelling to Ireland, we're paying college tuition. . . in other words, no one is going hungry here. I'm not choosing between medicine and food, ffs. We have worked hard but we have also been lucky in countless ways and we have much for which to be thankful. So many people who have worked just as hard as we have are undergoing tough times, and I don't mind one bit whatever hand up our government is able to give them. And admittedly, most of the people I hang out with are liberal, too, but I don't hear any of them complaining about paying their fair share.

[Witsec1]

But you see, the problem with this is that goes against the freedom that this country was established on. It's nice to see a professional athlete giving back to his community and places they may have come from, but when you start legislating that, then I have a problem.

Then Dwight D. Eisenhower must have been one of our most freedom-hating presidents, because the top tax rate when he was in office was 91%. The current top tax rate is 35%.

[link=http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213]Historical Top Tax Rates Info from Brookings Institute[/link]

Why do you think it would ruin the country and destroy our freedom to go back to the top tax rate we had in the 1950's? I have asked this a couple of times now.

[wtfrenchtoast]

But you see, the problem with this is that goes against the freedom that this country was established on. It's nice to see a professional athlete giving back to his community and places they may have come from, but when you start legislating that, then I have a problem.

Except we have already established as a country that taxes are necessary. Increasing taxes on the super wealthy isn't taking away any freedom that they currently have. Honestly, an increase isn't going to break these people. While I might agree with you that the government shouldn't KEEP asking for more and more with no limit, it definitely should ask for more RIGHT NOW. Tax rates increased to those of the Eisenhower era certainly won't hurt. I mean, if we use your slippery slope argument that the government can keep asking for more and more and more, we can take it the other way. What happens if the Republicans win and eventually no one has to pay any taxes ever? I don't like that idea.

Btw, I'm a she.

ETA: Austin, I wasn't implying that taxes equal punishment. It was just a reference to jericho saying Dems want to punish millionaires with higher rates. I agree with you that it's all about math.

[emmiedahl]

Yet $5000 a year is about the max that many families could invest. And they are able to do it tax free. Anyone else who invests in anything else will be taxes around 16%.

Roth IRA Meager? If you invest $5000 per year starting at age 25, with a typical 8% return and 4% inflation, you will have $1,165,000.00 at age 65.

Most Americans cannot afford to invest from 25. They are spending that money on living. Americans can start maxing out our retirements once we aren't paying $700 a month for health insurance and another $500 to student loans. :roll:

What Jericho is saying:

Middle class people often take taxes out of money that they need for medical care, education or other necessary expenses. They work long hours for every bit of it. Taxing them is not an infringement on their freedom.

Wealthy people are taking taxes out of their expendable income. They do not need it to survive. They take the money they have made on other people's labor and have another person invest it on their behalf, and live off the interest and dividends while enjoying a life of pampered leisure. Taxing them is an infringement on their freedom.

eta: I don't hate the wealthy. I have wealthy relatives and I agree that they worked hard and also had an element of luck. I love them! I am happy for them and I hope to someday enjoy the same prosperity. None of my wealthy relatives are opposed to an increase in capital gains. Because they mostly work for a living, unlike the ultra-wealthy that would be affected by Obama's proposed changes to the tax system.

[keeperrox]

I couldn't agree more. I consider myself probably closer to the right-of-center in terms of financial issues like this. I'm not socialist-leaning like many members of this board. I don't mind that millionaires exist and I don't want to "punish" them with more taxes.

I agree with you for the most part, however, I would change the bolded to something like "I don't want to punish them with higher taxes than everyone else", because I don't think taxing them is punishment. I do have a problem that the rich pays a much smaller percentage of their income on taxes than I do as the typical middle class 2-income, no-kids family, because of tax breaks that the typical American family doesn't qualify for.

[jericho]

ITA, except that I don't want to punish millionaires at all. It's not about punishment; it's about math. I don't think going back to the tax rates we had in the 1990s under Clinton would be a punishment, as overall, it was a time of growth.

I am not a millionaire (hardly - not even close), but our combined income puts us in the top quintile of earners and we pay plenty of taxes. Even with three kids we can still claim and our W-4 exemptions set at 0, and all the typical deductions (meager mortgage interest, real estate taxes, some tuition credit stuff,, etc), I still need to write a check for $2,300 in April to the federal government. And another $630 to the state. It's a bit of a bummer and no one likes paying big bills, but I actually don't resent paying it. It's our fair share.

We're still going on vacation this year, I'm travelling to Ireland, we're paying college tuition. . . in other words, no one is going hungry here. I'm not choosing between medicine and food, ffs. We have worked hard but we have also been lucky in countless ways and we have much for which to be thankful. So many people who have worked just as hard as we have are undergoing tough times, and I don't mind one bit whatever hand up our government is able to give them. And admittedly, most of the people I hang out with are liberal, too, but I don't hear any of them complaining about paying their fair share.

I wouldn't mind paying out to the government if I knew it was going to good use. But its like investing in Sears. You'd be better throwing the money out the window and hoping a homeless man picks it up.

[emmiedahl]

I hear the Roman government was not exactly frugal, yet you know what Jesus said about taxes....

eta: jericho, if you have a problem with government spending, start writing letters. But defunding the government and advocating for no social welfare programs won't stop the waste.

[JesusFightClub]

So, Jericho, your problem with tax is that you don't think the government spends it on the right things?

[wtfrenchtoast]

I agree with you for the most part, however, I would change the bolded to something like "I don't want to punish them with higher taxes than everyone else", because I don't think taxing them is punishment. I do have a problem that the rich pays a much smaller percentage of their income on taxes than I do as the typical middle class 2-income, no-kids family, because of tax breaks that the typical American family doesn't qualify for.

You're right. I actually don't think taxes are punishment at all, it was just in reference to jericho, who said something upthread about liberals wanting to punish the wealthy, as if that's the goal behind higher taxes for wealthier people. I should change it.