Your approval of the President so far

[Jax]

QUOTE (Jax)

The terms democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive.

In terms of the construction of The Constitution they certainly are. Prevailing thought at the time of the Constitution's ratification was a fear that the US would be a democracy. In fact, great pains were taken in crafting the Constitution to ensure that public passions exercised by a "tyranny of the majority" did not capture the government. Their hope was the US would never evolve into a 'majority rule' government. They envisioned many factions. So many that no single faction could dominate. In arguing for ratification Hamilton/Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51:

How can you say they are mutually exclusive. That means we can either have a constitutional republic or a democracy not both. It is entirely possible to have a constitutional republic that IS a democracy, that's what we've had since George Washington refused to run for a 3rd term as president. Maybe that's not what Tocqueville wanted but it's certainly what Washington wanted.

This is what I found about Toqueville's book Democracy in America.

The primary focus of Democracy in America is an analysis of why republican representative democracy has succeeded in the United States while failing in so many other places. He seeks to apply the functional aspects of democracy in America to what he sees as the failings of democracy in his native France.

Maybe his negative statements about democracy stem from the failings of democracy in his home country, France? Either way, I don't think that just because some French writer had problems with democracy, we should abandon our democratic principles here in the USA. I thought Republicans hated the French!

If you're so anti-democracy but very much pro republic, then the only option is to make Obama a dictator and suspend free elections (we can't make him king because a republic does not have a king so dictator is the only non democratic option). How does that sound?

Don't like the idea of Obama having supreme power indefinitely?

Do you now see the problem with not having democracy?

[Gooch]

I wonder if you consider so many deductions allowing the wealthy to pay less tax as a percentage is unfair to the lower income individuals?

At the risk of derailing this thread...I'll answer since you asked. I don't see it as a deduction problem as much as an income source problem. Our tax system is skewed against income earned from salaries. Warren Buffet has said he pays less tax margin than his secretary. That's likely true. His income stems from investment returns at the long-term capital gains rate (15%) as opposed to salary marginal rates which range 15-36%. In my case as well, my income comes from salary. I qualify for none of the deductions you mention. I'd also point out that EIC credits are not for the wealthy. And IRA (401k too) is only a delay in taxation. You pay the taxes on withdrawl.

One must also be careful not to confuse wealth with income. I've seen individuals worth millions in assets that only would only draw down $100k/year. Since there is no 'wealth' tax on property (at the federal level, until one dies), that multi-millionaire would pay the same taxes as a middle-income family. Your article does infact work from income, but many articles I've read along those lines do not; leaving the impression that the wealthy are cheating the system.

All of the poor (and some of the rich) are treated very favorably by our system. They pay little or nothing. The upper-end of the middle class pays a lot for that favorable treatment. Monthly, my income taxes, SSA, and FICA are more than I pay for rent, food, and utilities combined. I spend more on federal taxes than I spend on my own cost-of-living. Who is paying their 'fair' share? And no, I'm not what Obama would consider 'rich'.

[Marksmu]

I was thinking more along the lines of my mortgage interest deduction, my property tax deduction, my IRA deduction, EIC credits, sales tax deductions, business expenses, etc., etc., etc. When taken together, in fact, the myriad deductions allow the wealthy to pay a lower percentage of income in taxes on average than the middle class. Since you are concerned about the unfairness of progressive tax rates, I wonder if you consider so many deductions allowing the wealthy to pay less tax as a percentage is unfair to the lower income individuals?

Richest 400 Americans Pay Only 17% In Taxes

Ive just been reading since my first post, because though I completely disagree with everything Red has said and he has provided absolutely ZERO authority for any of his statements - Gooch is making the same points that I believe and he is doing it much more eloquently. But I cant let the statement that the richest pay only 17% in taxes, go without comment. IT IS the most rediculous statistic I have seen and it makes me absolutely SICK to hear that same old tired liberal trash. Its a crap statistic. Though it may be true in terms of a percent of THEIR total income that they pay only 17%. But as a percent of the TOTAL income received by the US Government for taxes - that top 1% of wage earners paying only 17% in taxes ALSO account for a FULL 39.89% of ALL INCOME TAXES PAID. The top 10% account for 60.14% of ALL INCOME TAXES PAID. Lets just skip on down to the top 50% of tax payers - they pay 97.01% of ALL INCOME TAX PAID.

That means that out of 300,000,000 Americans only half of them contributed a single penny to this government. That means if you walk down the street, every other person you meet did not pay a single dime to the government. And I guess your OK with that, and you think that we should take more from that 1% I mean, comon, they are only paying 40% freaking percent of all the taxes. Heck lets keep increasing social programs and paying for them through more taxes on those who are sucessful. Lets get the bottom half of this country even more dependent upon the government. Maybe we can get them so dependent upon the government for everything, and remove all incentive to work, we wont ever have to worry about a non-democrat socialist being elected again. I mean, even the laziest do nothing mooch can get off his fat butt one day out of the year, and push a button that reads "Straight Ticket Democrat" and then go back to "work" watching TV and collecting welfare checks. When times get tough, no problem - have another kid - that will get you more money. Well just raise the taxes on that other guy who is working right RED - its not raising taxes, its rolling back tax cuts! What a joke!

Your argument Red that the rich benefit the most and use the most, you have made on here before, and it still is just tired BS rhetoric. Without the 1% propping up the rest of us, this country would fail. Like it or not - the people who work are getting more and more sick of paying for the lives of those who do not.

So you can be demeaning towards me and where I went to college because I think your point of view is a rediculous utopian fantasy - but History has PROVEN my point time and time again if you keep removing the incentive for work, and giving to those who do not, there is a breaking point where the workers wont take it anymore, and will quit. And when they do - the society will fail. Heck just look at how well every major city that has been RUN BY DEMOCRATS FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS is doing.....LA Bankrupt, NY Bankrupt, San Fran Bankrupt, Chicago - verge of Bankrupt. All these cities are markers of where this country is going. Every major city run by democrats is failing with Houston as the exception, because the State is still more populated by people who can prop up the democrat leeches. These cities have taxed the workers to the breaking point, and they are quitting or leaving, and now there is nobody left to pay for their BS programs.

I feel bad for the good people left in Denver - they are next - the liberal LA group that destroyed California is abandoning ship without changing the principles that they used to destroy LA.

[20thStDad]

Poll results not that interesting thus far.

D: 6-6-0-2

R: 0-1-2-2

I: 9-7-5-7

I see two interesting things - very few are or are admitting they are Republicans. And, most of us consider ourselves above choosing teams in the annoying slap fight that is politics - I'm kidding, but the independents (in this limited poll) easily outnumber the combined major parties.

As for the overall approval rating: 15-14-7-11, I think it's fairly representative of the real polls out there, slightly leaning toward favorable but with strong contingents at both ends. So yeah, nothing surprising. Results will change and this post will become irrelevantly in a few minutes.

[Montrose1100]

That means that out of 300,000,000 Americans only half of them contributed a single penny to this government. That means if you walk down the street, every other person you meet did not pay a single dime to the government. And I guess your OK with that, and you think that we should take more from that 1% I mean, comon, they are only paying 40% freaking percent of all the taxes. Heck lets keep increasing social programs and paying for them through more taxes on those who are sucessful. Lets get the bottom half of this country even more dependent upon the government. Maybe we can get them so dependent upon the government for everything, and remove all incentive to work, we wont ever have to worry about a non-democrat socialist being elected again. I mean, even the laziest do nothing mooch can get off his fat butt one day out of the year, and push a button that reads "Straight Ticket Democrat" and then go back to "work" watching TV and collecting welfare checks. When times get tough, no problem - have another kid - that will get you more money. Well just raise the taxes on that other guy who is working right RED - its not raising taxes, its rolling back tax cuts! What a joke!

Your argument Red that the rich benefit the most and use the most, you have made on here before, and it still is just tired BS rhetoric. Without the 1% propping up the rest of us, this country would fail. Like it or not - the people who work are getting more and more sick of paying for the lives of those who do not.

So you can be demeaning towards me and where I went to college because I think your point of view is a rediculous utopian fantasy - but History has PROVEN my point time and time again if you keep removing the incentive for work, and giving to those who do not, there is a breaking point where the workers wont take it anymore, and will quit. And when they do - the society will fail. Heck just look at how well every major city that has been RUN BY DEMOCRATS FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS is doing.....LA Bankrupt, NY Bankrupt, San Fran Bankrupt, Chicago - verge of Bankrupt. All these cities are markers of where this country is going. Every major city run by democrats is failing with Houston as the exception, because the State is still more populated by people who can prop up the democrat leeches. These cities have taxed the workers to the breaking point, and they are quitting or leaving, and now there is nobody left to pay for their BS programs.

You are completely wrong. My Mom makes jack... she works her ass off 5 days a week, speaks 3 languages, and is worried about losing her job. What would she do if she lost her job? That's what the Goverment programs are for. Yes, people abuse the system, people who are able to work, but don't. But then you have the hard workers (which make the rich richer), and you're saying they shouldn't get any help because the upper crust are greedy & don't pay the people under them well enough?

That's B/S.

And what about those who are disabled? I guess in YOUR Utopia, they'd be killed at birth, and if you get injured to where you can't work anymore, then off the cliff for you. Or die of starvation out on the streets.

Since the community makes you rich, isn't it selfish not to give something back?

And what about College Students? Certainly you don't want to tax them? Since you went to College, you should know how hard it is to be in Upper Level classes, taking 12-15 hours, and working to stay afloat & feed yourself.

Your Logic is flawless.

[KinkaidAlum]

Ive just been reading since my first post, because though I completely disagree with everything Red has said and he has provided absolutely ZERO authority for any of his statements - Gooch is making the same points that I believe and he is doing it much more eloquently. But I cant let the statement that the richest pay only 17% in taxes, go without comment. IT IS the most rediculous statistic I have seen and it makes me absolutely SICK to hear that same old tired liberal trash. Its a crap statistic. Though it may be true in terms of a percent of THEIR total income that they pay only 17%. But as a percent of the TOTAL income received by the US Government for taxes - that top 1% of wage earners paying only 17% in taxes ALSO account for a FULL 39.89% of ALL INCOME TAXES PAID. The top 10% account for 60.14% of ALL INCOME TAXES PAID. Lets just skip on down to the top 50% of tax payers - they pay 97.01% of ALL INCOME TAX PAID.

That means that out of 300,000,000 Americans only half of them contributed a single penny to this government. That means if you walk down the street, every other person you meet did not pay a single dime to the government. And I guess your OK with that, and you think that we should take more from that 1% I mean, comon, they are only paying 40% freaking percent of all the taxes. Heck lets keep increasing social programs and paying for them through more taxes on those who are sucessful. Lets get the bottom half of this country even more dependent upon the government. Maybe we can get them so dependent upon the government for everything, and remove all incentive to work, we wont ever have to worry about a non-democrat socialist being elected again. I mean, even the laziest do nothing mooch can get off his fat butt one day out of the year, and push a button that reads "Straight Ticket Democrat" and then go back to "work" watching TV and collecting welfare checks. When times get tough, no problem - have another kid - that will get you more money. Well just raise the taxes on that other guy who is working right RED - its not raising taxes, its rolling back tax cuts! What a joke!

Your argument Red that the rich benefit the most and use the most, you have made on here before, and it still is just tired BS rhetoric. Without the 1% propping up the rest of us, this country would fail. Like it or not - the people who work are getting more and more sick of paying for the lives of those who do not.

So you can be demeaning towards me and where I went to college because I think your point of view is a rediculous utopian fantasy - but History has PROVEN my point time and time again if you keep removing the incentive for work, and giving to those who do not, there is a breaking point where the workers wont take it anymore, and will quit. And when they do - the society will fail. Heck just look at how well every major city that has been RUN BY DEMOCRATS FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS is doing.....LA Bankrupt, NY Bankrupt, San Fran Bankrupt, Chicago - verge of Bankrupt. All these cities are markers of where this country is going. Every major city run by democrats is failing with Houston as the exception, because the State is still more populated by people who can prop up the democrat leeches. These cities have taxed the workers to the breaking point, and they are quitting or leaving, and now there is nobody left to pay for their BS programs.

I feel bad for the good people left in Denver - they are next - the liberal LA group that destroyed California is abandoning ship without changing the principles that they used to destroy LA.

Um, before you go off on other people's crap posts which provide links, you might want to do some homework or at least try and back up your claims with a few references.

By the way, you didn't have much credibility to begin with, but you lost it ALL when you went off on Democratic mayors running cities into the ground. Are you serious? New York City has had a Republican mayor since 1994! Well, to be fair, Bloomberg did go "independent" in 2007. Have you ever heard of Guliani? In LA, Richard Riordan, a big ole west LA Republican, controlled the city from 1993 to 2001.

[Jax]

Good point, Montrose.

This guy seems to think that all poor people are lazy and deserve to suffer and all rich people work hard and deserve more than they already have. In reality, there are poor who work hard and never make it, there are rich who are lazy but get lucky, there are poor who are lazy and there are rich that work hard, and everything in between.

It seems that his idea of a Utopain society as one where the rich don't pay taxes, and the government doesn't provide any services. If you keep cutting taxes for the rich, you have to compensate for the loss of tax revenue by cutting programs like medicare, unemployment insurance, social security, education, defense, etc. That sort of society might seem okay for the rich (the people who already live pretty well would be living even better) but it would be horrible for the poor and middle classes. And that would likely actually be worse for everybody in the long run because poor people who are desperate and have nothing to live for and nothing to lose often turn to crime and violence.

That's why a huge division between classes is a bad thing. Think of a place like Mexico where some of the richest people in the world live, but also some of the poorest. The rich have to live in militarized complexes with private police forces and private drivers in order to stay safe, while the poor have nothing to live for so they join street gangs and drug cartels. Not my idea of a Utopia.

[RedScare]

At the risk of derailing this thread...I'll answer since you asked. I don't see it as a deduction problem as much as an income source problem. Our tax system is skewed against income earned from salaries. Warren Buffet has said he pays less tax margin than his secretary. That's likely true. His income stems from investment returns at the long-term capital gains rate (15%) as opposed to salary marginal rates which range 15-36%. In my case as well, my income comes from salary. I qualify for none of the deductions you mention. I'd also point out that EIC credits are not for the wealthy. And IRA (401k too) is only a delay in taxation. You pay the taxes on withdrawl.

One must also be careful not to confuse wealth with income. I've seen individuals worth millions in assets that only would only draw down $100k/year. Since there is no 'wealth' tax on property (at the federal level, until one dies), that multi-millionaire would pay the same taxes as a middle-income family. Your article does infact work from income, but many articles I've read along those lines do not; leaving the impression that the wealthy are cheating the system.

All of the poor (and some of the rich) are treated very favorably by our system. They pay little or nothing. The upper-end of the middle class pays a lot for that favorable treatment. Monthly, my income taxes, SSA, and FICA are more than I pay for rent, food, and utilities combined. I spend more on federal taxes than I spend on my own cost-of-living. Who is paying their 'fair' share? And no, I'm not what Obama would consider 'rich'.

You appear to be saying the same thing as I. I agree that the poor and the wealthy pay little in taxes. The only difference is that the wealthy can afford to pay at least as much as the middle class, while the poor remain poor. I'd have to do some math, but I believe that if we simply taxed income of ALL kinds of income at the same rates, and eliminated most, if not all of the deductions, the tax rates could be reduced somewhat dramatically.

[Marksmu]

You are completely wrong. My Mom makes jack... she works her ass off 5 days a week, speaks 3 languages, and is worried about losing her job. What would she do if she lost her job? That's what the Goverment programs are for. Yes, people abuse the system, people who are able to work, but don't. But then you have the hard workers (which make the rich richer), and you're saying they shouldn't get any help because the upper crust are greedy & don't pay the people under them well enough?

That's B/S.

And what about those who are disabled? I guess in YOUR Utopia, they'd be killed at birth, and if you get injured to where you can't work anymore, then off the cliff for you. Or die of starvation out on the streets.

Since the community makes you rich, isn't it selfish not to give something back?

And what about College Students? Certainly you don't want to tax them? Since you went to College, you should know how hard it is to be in Upper Level classes, taking 12-15 hours, and working to stay afloat & feed yourself.

Your Logic is flawless.

In a free market things are not going to be equal - Nobody ever guaranteed you that you will have as much in life as your neighbor, or the guy on tv - that is part of the point of a capitalist society - People who possess skills that others want get to market them at a higher price than someone who possesses a skill that is either in excess demand, or is something that anyone can do. There is always the INCENTIVE to get out there and make it for yourself. And do not tell me it cant be done - that is an excuse - People do it every day.

I do not know when it became the governments job to take care of everyone. Its not the governments job; its your own dang job. Im sorry your mom is busting her back and barely getting by, but its not the governments fault, and its definitely not my fault. Contrary to popular belief I have sympathy for people who dont have enough, but I absolutely do not feel responsible for them, and I certainly do not feel that I should be brought down a level so that they can step up one.

Charity should be left to charitable organizations, NOT the government. There are ways that can be achieved, but under our current system, people feel entitled to it and that is absurd. Your not entitled to a comfortable life, with cable tv, a car, a microwave, air conditioning, etc...those are luxury items.

You are right about one thing though; it would be selfish not to give back to a community that is making you rich, but you should not be REQUIRED to do so. The requirement to distribute your wealth is socialism. When people feel secure in their belongings, and they know that what they make will not be taken away, it is much easier to be Charitable. We are one of the most charitable society's on Earth giving to those in need when they are truly in need. But its just not charity if they take it from your check and put you in jail if you dont do it. The homeless guy on the corner goes to jail if he grabs you forcefully and takes your money to keep for himself, or give to others. There is no difference.

As to your college student argument it is absurd. Most college people dont pay taxes because they make no money, because they are in school. Conversely very few of those in college are collecting welfare, child support, and food stamps to pay their way through. They are doing it the correct way. They are taking out loans to pay for their education. They are making sacrifices now to reap the rewards for their work later. They are not having kids now because they can not afford them yet and they are not financially able to care for them. Most college students are not forcing the rest of society to pay for college and a comfortable life for them. My wife and I amassed a tremendous load of student debt in college and law school, and not once did we ask you and your mom to chip in because it was inconvenient for us to do so. We will be paying down that debt for years to come, and guess what it still wont be your moms obligation to pay the bank back. Same as it should not be my obligation to make sure your mom has everything she needs. We waited longer to decide to have a family because we couldnt afford it, and we were not in the right career, but that has come at a cost as well. But it was a sacrifice we made.

Nobody wants to make sacrifices anymore, they just want to look at the "rich' say they have too much and take it away for their own use. Everyone simply feels entitled, and thats a problem. To roll this whole schpeel back into the original thread - that is why I disagree with Obama on nearly everything he has done - he is increasing taxes, to pay for his new entitlement programs. More programs for those people who already think they dont get enough, but deserve more just for being in this country - legally or not.

[RedScare]

I do not know when it became the governments job to take care of everyone.

I would suggest somewhere around September of 1787.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nobody wants to make sacrifices anymore...

Isn't paying taxes a sacrifice? Why don't the rich sacrifice along with the rest of us?

Most college students are not forcing the rest of society to pay for college and a comfortable life for them.

Oh, REALLY? What is that $19 BILLION in the current $168 Billion Texas budget paying for then? What are those property taxes that I pay for the Houston Community College System paying for? (Note: I do not mind paying taxes toward education.)

[sevfiv]

More programs for those people who already think they dont get enough, but deserve more just for being in this country - legally or not.

You sure seem to have a finger closely on the pulse of those stupid poor people. How do you know so much about them? (them = a pretty diverse set of people).

[20thStDad]

If you don't like poor or lazy people, make sure you get a spot on Moonraker 5, it's sure to be taking off soon.

[Gooch]

I'd have to do some math, but I believe that if we simply taxed income of ALL kinds of income at the same rates, and eliminated most, if not all of the deductions, the tax rates could be reduced somewhat dramatically.

We do agree that the periphery of income gets the biggest breaks. But consider that for most of the working class in this country - their source of wealth is their salary. For the truly (non-working) rich, their source of wealth are their assets - they have an income that only meets their expenses. Raising top marginal rates on income hurts those that earn their wealth from their salary -the working wealthy. That's the Obama plan -raise top marginal rates. The affluent will continue to pay tax only on the (minimized) amount of income they derive from their assets. It doesn't level things out at all. But on the surface it sounds like it does!

To effeciently recover funds from the truly wealthy, you'd have to go to a federal tax on wealth - not income - a property tax at the national level that included all assest classes including stock, bonds, real estate, and cash... such a tax would cause money to flee our shores with astonishing speed. The there'd be no rich people left to tax. (A nice closed-loop paradox)

Long term capital gains are taxed differently as an incentive for investment. The data I've looked at is mixed on the success of that. I will say that if you are investing for a profit of only 5-10% per annum, the differential between 15% tax of that profit and a 36% can be huge to a small investor who has already reached the top marginal rates. (example a household making $250k/year) The LTCG tax rate lowers the entry bar for small investors - just like lower marginal income rate helps those of lower income. It helps the big money guys and the small money guys. That's easy to forget. Obama has proposed LTCG repeal.

Back to paising or bashing Obama! ;D

[Marksmu]

I would suggest somewhere around September of 1787.

Isn't paying taxes a sacrifice? Why don't the rich sacrifice along with the rest of us?

Oh, REALLY? What is that $19 BILLION in the current $168 Billion Texas budget paying for then? What are those property taxes that I pay for the Houston Community College System paying for? (Note: I do not mind paying taxes toward education.)

So what is it that you want from taxes then? At what point are you happy the "rich" have been taxed enough and the "poor" have contributed enough to feel invested in this country? Because that is what were looking for here isn't it- a happy medium. Some tax point where there is still plenty of incentive to achieve, and a point where even those with little have been forced to contribute something so that they actually care about the direction this country is headed. Right now all I see is me me me, from everyone - how can I get more and who owes me what. - my point throughout is simply that the "rich" are paying more than their fair share; the top 1% or 3,000,000 people pay 40% of all taxes collected.

My reasoning for all my arguments is that you have to have something in the game to play; something to lose; or else its not fair to all of those who do. So what is your solution? Your not happy with the top half contributing 97% - my source here for the poster looking for my authority: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

I like to think of this country as a place where everyone has a great opportunity. But I have seen time and again, when you give something to someone without asking them to work for it; they take it for granted and squander it. Look at the interest only, nothing down, subprime loans - and the gigantic percentage of those that failed. Those people had nothing invested, so they just did not care - nothing to lose.

What is your point of happiness when is enough, enough? The Democrat solution is tax the rich more - but I do not believe that will work because they are becoming disenfranchised at the current tax points as it is, so what is the solution?

Some possible solutions to making things better include...

1. Welfare only when necessary - and for limited time periods.

2. Drug test welfare recipients

3. Require welfare recipients who are able to work to actually work for their checks - community service, trash pickup, something that gets them out of the house and being productive. Make them want something more.

4. Cut overseas spending and international welfare programs till our problems are solved.

5. Require proof of citizenship before dolling out services & stop issuing citizenship to the children of non-citizens.

6. Close un-necessary military bases in places our troops are not needed, and redploy them here on the border

7. term limits on senators, & representatives

8. Get rid of duplicative government spending

9. Make it simple to file a tax return and require it, even if you do not owe anything

10. Require a filed tax return to register to vote - even if you do not pay anything.

Honestly it would be much easier for me to pay more taxes if I did not feel like a portion of what I pay is going to those who do not deserve it, who dont want to work for it, and who I believe feel entitled to it. If I knew my money was going to welfare programs, but those programs were forcing people to work - it would be much more pallitable than the current system.

[Montrose1100]

In a free market things are not going to be equal - Nobody ever guaranteed you that you will have as much in life as your neighbor, or the guy on tv - that is part of the point of a capitalist society - People who possess skills that others want get to market them at a higher price than someone who possesses a skill that is either in excess demand, or is something that anyone can do. There is always the INCENTIVE to get out there and make it for yourself. And do not tell me it cant be done - that is an excuse - People do it every day.

I do not know when it became the governments job to take care of everyone. Its not the governments job; its your own dang job. Im sorry your mom is busting her back and barely getting by, but its not the governments fault, and its definitely not my fault. Contrary to popular belief I have sympathy for people who dont have enough, but I absolutely do not feel responsible for them, and I certainly do not feel that I should be brought down a level so that they can step up one.

Charity should be left to charitable organizations, NOT the government. There are ways that can be achieved, but under our current system, people feel entitled to it and that is absurd. Your not entitled to a comfortable life, with cable tv, a car, a microwave, air conditioning, etc...those are luxury items.

You are right about one thing though; it would be selfish not to give back to a community that is making you rich, but you should not be REQUIRED to do so. The requirement to distribute your wealth is socialism. When people feel secure in their belongings, and they know that what they make will not be taken away, it is much easier to be Charitable. We are one of the most charitable society's on Earth giving to those in need when they are truly in need. But its just not charity if they take it from your check and put you in jail if you dont do it. The homeless guy on the corner goes to jail if he grabs you forcefully and takes your money to keep for himself, or give to others. There is no difference.

As to your college student argument it is absurd. Most college people dont pay taxes because they make no money, because they are in school. Conversely very few of those in college are collecting welfare, child support, and food stamps to pay their way through. They are doing it the correct way. They are taking out loans to pay for their education. They are making sacrifices now to reap the rewards for their work later. They are not having kids now because they can not afford them yet and they are not financially able to care for them. Most college students are not forcing the rest of society to pay for college and a comfortable life for them. My wife and I amassed a tremendous load of student debt in college and law school, and not once did we ask you and your mom to chip in because it was inconvenient for us to do so. We will be paying down that debt for years to come, and guess what it still wont be your moms obligation to pay the bank back. Same as it should not be my obligation to make sure your mom has everything she needs. We waited longer to decide to have a family because we couldnt afford it, and we were not in the right career, but that has come at a cost as well. But it was a sacrifice we made.

Nobody wants to make sacrifices anymore, they just want to look at the "rich' say they have too much and take it away for their own use. Everyone simply feels entitled, and thats a problem. To roll this whole schpeel back into the original thread - that is why I disagree with Obama on nearly everything he has done - he is increasing taxes, to pay for his new entitlement programs. More programs for those people who already think they dont get enough, but deserve more just for being in this country - legally or not.

Around in circles...

You truely have no idea of what people deserve, and what they don't. I didn't say because my mom works hard she deserves a condo in the Galleria area (yet alone with goverment help). I said she shouldn't have to pay a butt load of taxes. She doesn't have any goverment funding. But I think her greedy bosses should pay her more, because of the amount of money she makes for them. Same with a lot of companies, where the wealthy have destroyed the middle class. But since the greedy will be greedy, then yes, the taxes should be raised for them.

I don't believe in socialism. But for the truely unfortunate, there should be goverment programs. I don't think we should all be payed the same, and deserve all the same things... you've got that all wrong.

But I agree with you... poor people who want their slice or just to take away from the rich while doing nothing in return (i.e. not working if able), then ya, not cool.

However, everyone has different circumstances. What if you were disabled one day? Couldn't work... No one could help or support you...(god forbid), that's what the goverment programs are for. What if you lost your job, and could truely not find work? That's what the programs are for.

Hopefully, that'll never happen. But its a safety net for others.

[RedScare]

We do agree that the periphery of income gets the biggest breaks. But consider that for most of the working class in this country - their source of wealth is their salary. For the truly (non-working) rich, their source of wealth are their assets - they have an income that only meets their expenses. Raising top marginal rates on income hurts those that earn their wealth from their salary -the working wealthy. That's the Obama plan -raise top marginal rates. The affluent will continue to pay tax only on the (minimized) amount of income they derive from their assets. It doesn't level things out at all. But on the surface it sounds like it does!

To effeciently recover funds from the truly wealthy, you'd have to go to a federal tax on wealth - not income - a property tax at the national level that included all assest classes including stock, bonds, real estate, and cash... such a tax would cause money to flee our shores with astonishing speed. The there'd be no rich people left to tax. (A nice closed-loop paradox)

Long term capital gains are taxed differently as an incentive for investment. The data I've looked at is mixed on the success of that. I will say that if you are investing for a profit of only 5-10% per annum, the differential between 15% tax of that profit and a 36% can be huge to a small investor who has already reached the top marginal rates. (example a household making $250k/year) The LTCG tax rate lowers the entry bar for small investors - just like lower marginal income rate helps those of lower income. It helps the big money guys and the small money guys. That's easy to forget. Obama has proposed LTCG repeal.

Back to paising or bashing Obama! ;D

Obama only proposes a return to the rates of the late 80s and 90s...not the rates of the 60s and 70s. Lowering the cap gains tax did nothing useful. It merely gave away Billions in tax revenue that had not been hurting the rich. A return to the old rates won't hurt them or investments any more than the rates did in the 90s. And, most people would not mind a return to the 90s in comparison to today.

I've never really researched a nationwide property tax, so I won't comment on it. Frankly, there are not THAT many property rich but income poor Americans. Taxing only their realized income is fine with me. No system can be perfect, and we could make huge improvements to the current system without going to a whole new system. Like I've said before, our myriad deductions have destroyed the basic fairness of the system. Stripping away most or all of the deductions would allow the top rates to be lowered. In a sense, it would be closer to a flat tax than anything we've seen proposed. For instance, there are 128 million households in the US. Total US income is about $6.5 Trillion. Taxes on that income currently is roughly $1.3 Trillion. If deductions were eliminated, you could give every household a $10,000 household deduction ($1.28 Trillion), and tax the remaining $5.2 Trillion at 20% and get $1.3 Trillion in revenue. The reason we cannot do that now is because of all of the deductions.

I don't buy the theory that eliminating the deductions wreaks all sorts of havoc. The deductions themselves are wreaking havoc. Eliminating the deductions is merely a different sort of havoc. The only "deduction" that should be kept is for IRAs. Losing my mortgage interest deduction would suck, but the household credit plus the lower flat rate would even it out somewhat. The only problem with this scheme is that every single person will do their math and if their taxes do not go down, they'll scream bloody murder. Screw fairness. These people want unfairness in their favor.

[RedScare]

So what is it that you want from taxes then? At what point are you happy the "rich" have been taxed enough and the "poor" have contributed enough to feel invested in this country? Because that is what were looking for here isn't it- a happy medium. Some tax point where there is still plenty of incentive to achieve, and a point where even those with little have been forced to contribute something so that they actually care about the direction this country is headed. Right now all I see is me me me, from everyone - how can I get more and who owes me what. - my point throughout is simply that the "rich" are paying more than their fair share; the top 1% or 3,000,000 people pay 40% of all taxes collected.

My reasoning for all my arguments is that you have to have something in the game to play; something to lose; or else its not fair to all of those who do. So what is your solution? Your not happy with the top half contributing 97% - my source here for the poster looking for my authority: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

I like to think of this country as a place where everyone has a great opportunity. But I have seen time and again, when you give something to someone without asking them to work for it; they take it for granted and squander it. Look at the interest only, nothing down, subprime loans - and the gigantic percentage of those that failed. Those people had nothing invested, so they just did not care - nothing to lose.

What is your point of happiness when is enough, enough? The Democrat solution is tax the rich more - but I do not believe that will work because they are becoming disenfranchised at the current tax points as it is, so what is the solution?

Some possible solutions to making things better include...

1. Welfare only when necessary - and for limited time periods.

2. Drug test welfare recipients

3. Require welfare recipients who are able to work to actually work for their checks - community service, trash pickup, something that gets them out of the house and being productive. Make them want something more.

4. Cut overseas spending and international welfare programs till our problems are solved.

5. Require proof of citizenship before dolling out services & stop issuing citizenship to the children of non-citizens.

6. Close un-necessary military bases in places our troops are not needed, and redploy them here on the border

7. term limits on senators, & representatives

8. Get rid of duplicative government spending

9. Make it simple to file a tax return and require it, even if you do not owe anything

10. Require a filed tax return to register to vote - even if you do not pay anything.

Honestly it would be much easier for me to pay more taxes if I did not feel like a portion of what I pay is going to those who do not deserve it, who dont want to work for it, and who I believe feel entitled to it. If I knew my money was going to welfare programs, but those programs were forcing people to work - it would be much more pallitable than the current system.

OK, I see a few suggestions on how you would save a few bucks, but your rants were about the tax rates. I understand that it is more fun to go off on a tangent when I propose something, but exactly how would you do it? Apparently, paying taxes as a percentage of income is unfair. Would you simply divvy up the bill amongst everyone? Using George Bush's last budget (because Obama's is too big) of $3.3 Trillion as a base, would you just divide the $3.3 Trillion by 300 million US residents, and assign each man, woman and child an $11,000 tab? What about those hard working minimum wage earners? Would you take their whole check, because that is fair? What about those who got laid off? Do they still owe the $11,000?

Let's hear your solution. The reason I don't listen to Republicans, tea partiers and everyone else is because they aren't proposing a solution. And, I'm talking REASONABLE solutions. If all you're going to do is propose instantaneously shrinking government to a level not seen in 150 years, then save your breath. So, let's start with Marksmu's uber-cool, ultra fair taxing scheme.

I'm all ears.

[KinkaidAlum]

The funny thing is, people who make more than $200,000 a year tended to vote for Obama. Obama WON the super wealthy catagory by a 52-46 margin.

On the surface, you might say these folks didn't vote in their own economic interest. But that wouldn't be true. Taxes ARE NOT the only thing that matter to most folks. I also have a hard time believing that places like Greenwich, CT and Beverly Hills CA are proudly leading the Red Revolution!

Obama isn't talking about raising taxes back to historical levels. He's talking about raising them to the 1990s Clinton level. Well, you know what, most rich folks would love to return to the 90s. Rich people were RICHER back then. The country was healthier back then.

Look, paying a lower tax rate sounds great to most people. But it doesn't sound great if it means your investments have eroded, jobs are vanishing, the infrastructure is failing, schools are dismal, and you're fighting a war under false pretenses while your civil liberties are vanishing at home.

Greenwich, CT voted for a Democrat for the first time since 1964. These are the nation's uber-elite. They are super rich. Most are overly educated. Most could see that the past 8 years simply didn't work and they'd rather pay a bit more in taxes than stay the course.

In the end, I think rich people DID VOTE in their own economic self-interest. It's just that Obama represented that interest better than McCain/Palin.

[Gooch]

Obama isn't talking about raising taxes back to historical levels. He's talking about raising them to the 1990s Clinton level. Well, you know what, most rich folks would love to return to the 90s. Rich people were RICHER back then. The country was healthier back then. ... Look, paying a lower tax rate sounds great to most people. But it doesn't sound great if it means your investments have eroded

I'm not sure I understand tha causal relationship between higher taxes and increased wealth. Could you explain?

[Marksmu]

OK, I see a few suggestions on how you would save a few bucks, but your rants were about the tax rates. I understand that it is more fun to go off on a tangent when I propose something, but exactly how would you do it? Apparently, paying taxes as a percentage of income is unfair. Would you simply divvy up the bill amongst everyone? Using George Bush's last budget (because Obama's is too big) of $3.3 Trillion as a base, would you just divide the $3.3 Trillion by 300 million US residents, and assign each man, woman and child an $11,000 tab? What about those hard working minimum wage earners? Would you take their whole check, because that is fair? What about those who got laid off? Do they still owe the $11,000?

Let's hear your solution. The reason I don't listen to Republicans, tea partiers and everyone else is because they aren't proposing a solution. And, I'm talking REASONABLE solutions. If all you're going to do is propose instantaneously shrinking government to a level not seen in 150 years, then save your breath. So, let's start with Marksmu's uber-cool, ultra fair taxing scheme.

I'm all ears.

Im not completely against the current tiered system however, an ever changing quickly increasing tax code does is very hard on people like us, who though we may have what some people apparently think of as high incomes, we also have large obligations that cannot be deferred because its popular now to raise taxes. I cant go to the bank and say I need my payments lower, or just reduce my principal because the government decided to change the rules on me mid course. The bank will laugh at me. The super marjority of our income is subject to Federal employment taxes - we are not getting our income from these wonderful capital gains at 15% my tax rate is 35% - We pay 35% of almost all our income to the government. You say going from 35-40% is not that big of a deal, but it is a big deal to me. Its a huge sum of money out of our pocket at the end of the year.

You want to raise the taxes on capital gains too so that its a flat rate for people across all investments, but again, I think you have to leave long term capital gains taxes low or ONLY the corporations and the rich can participate - I think you have to keep the tax percentages low as well. The answer to our problem is not increasing taxes - its increasing spending. Decreasing taxes, increases spending. If you increase spending you increase tax revenue.

As Gooch Stated - a person in my situation cant afford a long term investment if you jack that rate up too - You already pay taxes just to carry your investments, increasing a tax upon the realization of those investments for many people who are small timers like I consider myself - that would wipe out 100% of the profit, thereby making it impossible, and thereby preventing it from ever being done, and thereby taking more money out of the economy.

I can tell you outright with 100% certainty that I would spend more money if I were taxed less - my list of things that I want to do in my life still is very very long and nothing on it is free. I would love to buy all kinds of new equipment and expand my ranch operation into farming as well - but instead of doing something productive with my income, I have to give it to the government to squander. That money would be better spent keeping people employed providing me with those things I want to buy - than it is by the government just feeding them and subsidizing their rent. Unfortunately Mr. Obama man doesnt seem to make that connection. He apparently thinks propping people up gives them more incentive to work hard. I do not agree with that. You dont start going up again until you have hit rock bottom - for many rock bottom is well below the welfare line.

I personally believe that a flat tax or a national sales tax is the better solution. You have no tax on necessary items - food, clothes below a set dollar amount, etc - it taxes only consumption and poeple will be pushed to consume more becuase they are not paying any income tax and they see their bank account growing quickly. It forces taxation, as the rich must abide by the same rules as the poor - and all the necessities are tax free. The argument that it is a regressive tax can be solved easily by structuring the tax based on the items. A car is a necessity - fine, a car under $10,000 is tax free - anything above $10,000 is taxed at a higher rate.

The rich will still consume and thus pay more taxes - the illegals will finally pay their own way and the truly poor will still pay no taxes, unless they decide they want to act like they are not poor and say get a nice car, or fancy tires, or cable television - Then we can eliminate the IRS. Win/Win/Win

what is wrong with that system? It encourages and rewards growth. People wont stop spending and the tax would NOT have to be 50% like people want you to believe - if you take out all the taxes already in all the items we are currently buying the price would plummet - by just putting them back as sales tax we would see very little change in items actual cost.

[Gooch]

If you're so anti-democracy but very much pro republic, then the only option is to make Obama a dictator and suspend free elections (we can't make him king because a republic does not have a king so dictator is the only non democratic option). How does that sound? Don't like the idea of Obama having supreme power indefinitely?

Do you now see the problem with not having democracy?

Jax, I missed your edit to your post. I'm sorry, I don't understand why a republic equals making Obama (or any president) an omnipotent dictator. Could you explain that?

My working definition of democracy is each has an equal vote on enacting law and simple majority wins. We don't have voting rights on laws in the US. True, we democratically-elect our representatives and ONLY congressional representatives. But that's our only voting right. We have no governing power whatsoever. The populace of this nation does not vote to enact laws, ratify treaties, etc. Only Congress does that. They do the voting. Name a single Federal law the public have had the ability to vote for/against. Not even the president is elected by a vote of the population. We vote for representatives to the Electoral College.

In Constitutional construction terms, the founding fathers eschewed direct voting power because of the distrust of equal-voting democracy by many of the members. If a majority of the nation were misled, irrational, or irresponsible, then Congress would vote in opposition to the people's will. Congressional members are not bound by any law, entaglement, or obligation to vote in accordance with the majority whims of the population they were elected by. They frequently don't! Similarly, the Electoral College is not bound to elect a president accorance with the population. That is a safety-measure to prevent an irrational populace from electing themselves into tyranny.

Given the steps taken to differentiate our government from Democracy; and the key role explaination of that differentiaton in the Federalist Papers had in ratification, I don't see how the term can apply. Describing our system of representative government as a republic is etymologically simplest. I'd love to read a historic counter-point to the Federalist Papers suggesting that Congress' intentions with the Constitution was to establish a democracy. Well, when I'm done with Tocqueville...

This is what I found about Toqueville's book Democracy in America.

The primary focus of Democracy in America is an analysis of why republican representative democracy has succeeded in the United States while failing in so many other places. He seeks to apply the functional aspects of democracy in America to what he sees as the failings of democracy in his native France.

Do you have that source? I'm interested in reading some analysis when I'm done. I dont' agree with it at this point, but I'm not done yet. It's tough reading. ;-D

[gto250us]

Things started to go to hell in this country when we gave women the vote.

Obama? HE LIES!

[crunchtastic]

Things started to go to hell in this country when we gave women the vote.

and now they're all packing heat, wearing pants and negotiating foreign policy. The menfolk are toast. Totally screwed!

[gto250us]

and now they're all packing heat, wearing pants and negotiating foreign policy. The menfolk are toast. Totally screwed!

That's why god invented Beer and Whisky

[ricco67]

I went ahead and delete my previous vote on the approval vote to "Somewhat" disapprove.

The issue with pulling the missile defense system from europe is a major mistake, along with some other issues he isn't handling very well. At least, in my opinion he's screwing up on foreign policy and he's starting to backtrack on the war. Major mistake.

For those that might be remotely interested, I HAD a "Somewhat approve", but the health care plan is total crap as it is, but I DO believe in universal healthcare.

That's my belief without the partisan BS rants that I've seen.

EDIT: I think everyone should change their vote accordingly, even those that previous strongly disapproved or approved of his performance and it would be interesting where the polls are now.

[HtownWxBoy]

Things started to go to hell in this country when we gave women the vote.

Obama? HE LIES!

[Marksmu]

I went ahead and delete my previous vote on the approval vote to "Somewhat" disapprove.

The issue with pulling the missile defense system from europe is a major mistake, along with some other issues he isn't handling very well. At least, in my opinion he's screwing up on foreign policy and he's starting to backtrack on the war. Major mistake.

For those that might be remotely interested, I HAD a "Somewhat approve", but the health care plan is total crap as it is, but I DO believe in universal healthcare.

That's my belief without the partisan BS rants that I've seen.

EDIT: I think everyone should change their vote accordingly, even those that previous strongly disapproved or approved of his performance and it would be interesting where the polls are now.

I may rant, but I maintain a strongly disapprove! If this were Bush, I would have had a somewhat disapprove vote - The health care bill is total crap - do we need reform? Yes but not his kind - Obama has become a joke - nobody takes him seriously, other countries believe he is Weak - and America will pay the price.

Under Obamas watch - the dollar is going to be dethroned, national security is going to be severely jeopardized, Health Care will crumble if he succeeds, Illegal immigrants will be legalized, and tax rates, inflation, and interest rates are all going to soar.

I maintain that I can not think of one single thing he has said or done that I agree with, except for his Kanye West statement...but thats pretty pointless anyway - and I think below the office of the president to even comment on.

[AtticaFlinch]

I may rant, but I maintain a strongly disapprove! If this were Bush, I would have had a somewhat disapprove vote - The health care bill is total crap - do we need reform? Yes but not his kind - Obama has become a joke - nobody takes him seriously, other countries believe he is Weak - and America will pay the price.

Under Obamas watch - the dollar is going to be dethroned, national security is going to be severely jeopardized, Health Care will crumble if he succeeds, Illegal immigrants will be legalized, and tax rates, inflation, and interest rates are all going to soar.

I maintain that I can not think of one single thing he has said or done that I agree with, except for his Kanye West statement...but thats pretty pointless anyway - and I think below the office of the president to even comment on.

This isn't even a coherent response. Nobody takes him seriously? Or, you and your circle of Fox News fan friends don't take him seriously? Sure, his approval ratings have dipped since he entered office, but there hasn't been a president in history this hasn't happened to in this same amount of time that I can think of. I'd like to see some evidence for every complaint you've raised in your second paragraph. Not that I think there is any, I just want you to be forced to reevaluate your diatribe due to the overwhelming lack of evidence. The fact you can't think of a single thing he's done or said that you agree with is more than enough to dismiss your opinion as the muttered ramblings of a malcontent. Precisely what do you disagree with? And why?

[ricco67]

This isn't even a coherent response. Nobody takes him seriously? Or, you and your circle of Fox News fan friends don't take him seriously? Sure, his approval ratings have dipped since he entered office, but there hasn't been a president in history this hasn't happened to in this same amount of time that I can think of. I'd like to see some evidence for every complaint you've raised in your second paragraph. Not that I think there is any, I just want you to be forced to reevaluate your diatribe due to the overwhelming lack of evidence. The fact you can't think of a single thing he's done or said that you agree with is more than enough to dismiss your opinion as the muttered ramblings of a malcontent. Precisely what do you disagree with? And why?

I agree, it was a total rant.

Really had to lower my ratings to "strongly disapprove" because of his "discussions" for future discussions with Iran. Another president taking the bait.

The decent into the dollar didn't begin with President Obama, it started about 6 or 7 yrs ago, and it'll take at least that long for it to make a comeback...IF things start happening right now.

[Marksmu]

This isn't even a coherent response. Nobody takes him seriously? Or, you and your circle of Fox News fan friends don't take him seriously? Sure, his approval ratings have dipped since he entered office, but there hasn't been a president in history this hasn't happened to in this same amount of time that I can think of. I'd like to see some evidence for every complaint you've raised in your second paragraph. Not that I think there is any, I just want you to be forced to reevaluate your diatribe due to the overwhelming lack of evidence. The fact you can't think of a single thing he's done or said that you agree with is more than enough to dismiss your opinion as the muttered ramblings of a malcontent. Precisely what do you disagree with? And why?

I disagree with Government Run Health Care - You cannot magically give health insurance to 30-45 Million people without adding a significant number of doctors and nurses to care for this added burden....His plan does not add doctors or nurses...Under his plan there will be rationing of care...it is supply and demand. And Im not just talking about Hospitals. Contrary to what the Democrats want you to believe, most illegals do not get their care from hospitals...they go back to Mexico and purchase the medicine and then return. Some do use the hospital for their personal doctor, but most do not.

I disagree with amnesty for Illegal aliens - He has stated time and time again, he wants to grant amnesty to all those in this country illegally. Just last week he stated he needs to get the immigration reform bill passed, so that when the health care bill passes all the illegal immigrants will be covered under the plan. Its a two faced lie...he says illegals will not be covered but at the EXACT SAME TIME he says he is going to make it so there are not any illegals...that is doublespeak! - not technically untrue but dishonest to the core- I am not going to pass health care that grants care to illegals, but I am going to make all illegals legal - HE IS DISHONEST!

World leaders do not respect him at all:

He snubs our most staunch allies: http://www.guardian....don-brown-talks

Even France is laughing at us: http://www.realclear...ukes_97229.html

He demeans the office of the presidency: http://www.reuters.c...232140920091002

The UN AND the G20 - call for new global currency - http://news.yahoo.co...g20forexuschina

How many examples do you want? He is a failure. - As the dollar weakens, which it has been consistently doing, US buying power will be smaller and smaller - everything here will get more expensive (Inflation) as this happens, to curb inflation the fed will be forced to raise the interest rates...I fail to see the problem in my economics...all of my statements remain as they were in the previous post true.

If you can point me to something you think I might agree with that this bozo has done, I would love to hear it...Unlike most democrats, I am open minded, and will admit, when something is done correctly...even if I do not like the person doing it.