Catch-22

spyguy

Strangest Tribe wrote:

Yes they pay more $$$ but the % has been the same or less since 2002, plus naturally they don't tax federal assistance or such huge windfalls... this goes for most corporate government handouts

hmmm so the tax % for businesses is the same for those that make 75k or 1 million?

spyguy

catch22 wrote:

"tax and spend" worked ok for clinton. shit, he managed a balanced budget when he had the help of republicans who actually knew how to address spending. the line item veto should never have been overruled. but he wasn't exactly axing important federal programs to do it.

i've not heard the specifics of obama's plans, but i'm wondering how much increased spending we're talking versus taxes. i also suspect some of the "increased" spending is simply going to be moving some funding from defense to education and the like. unless you're talking about universal health care, which i'm sure will never get off the ground.

in any case, i'm all for the prospect that maybe we'll take in as much as we spend regardless of the wisdom of high spending, a balanced budget is better than crippling debt. and i know for a fact spending will increase on mccain's watch as much as ever. i prefer a real attempt to balance a budget to more republican bullshit pipe dreams like "we'll reduce spending, i swear! just vote for this huge tax cut for the top 5% first!"

I wouldnt put clinton in the tax and spend category but he was lucky enough to be around doing the tech boom and relative peace in the world. that is the only reason we had a surplus.

but look, at this point, I'm almost willing to see what Obama would do at this point. I tend to stand behind whomever is president and give them the benefit of the doubt. based on my experience though, I just do not see his current plan working. government spending is out of control and it needs to stop. and thats something neither candidate has promised.

Strangest Tribe

spyguy wrote:

hmmm so the tax % for businesses is the same for those that make 75k or 1 million?

it's not as simple as percentages... however it is arguable that the tax% is actually less for the larger farms than the smaller but that's going to include larger tax breaks for multiple line item deductions on federal, state and county levels.

The more you have, the cheaper it all becomes.... crop insurance, farm vehicle taxes, county road taxes, farm insurance...and taxes as well...

The more you have the less you pay % wise in taxes

fuck

decides2dream wrote:

:eek:
what i want to know is who in the hell took over outlaw's username?!

seriously, while i may not agree on all points per se....i agree overall, in theory. just shocked to see a nader supporter so clearly and definitively....and finally acknowledge the differences, and the importance of such.

my biggest issue with Obama was always foreign policy, but I have personal issues that deal more with domestic law right now.

carry on...........

only with your permission

decides2dream

_outlaw wrote:

my biggest issue with Obama was always foreign policy, but I have personal issues that deal more with domestic law right now.

only with your permission

as i have always stated in support of my personal choices for candidates...we EACH have to find our own personal focus and base our personal decisions on that. absolutely nothing wrong with basing YOUR choice on what is most important to YOU. we cannot change everything, all at once...as we may want or desire. so why not find the issues that are near and dear, and find your best alignment? always been my thinking.....but for me, it's about the greater good and/or the bigger picture as it were. there is no one candidate who meets all my critera, ever...so go with the one who most closely emulates what i desire most.




but of course....;)

catch22

spyguy wrote:

I wouldnt put clinton in the tax and spend category but he was lucky enough to be around doing the tech boom and relative peace in the world. that is the only reason we had a surplus.

but look, at this point, I'm almost willing to see what Obama would do at this point. I tend to stand behind whomever is president and give them the benefit of the doubt. based on my experience though, I just do not see his current plan working. government spending is out of control and it needs to stop. and thats something neither candidate has promised.

true. neither looks likely to reduce spending. i guess i just feel like if we're going to be doing the spending anyway, we ought to be paying for it. maybe if taxes get bad enough people will finally start asking where it goes. plus, mccain looks to be all too happy to simply continue on the same path that's been going on the last 8 years. anything is a better change than that, as far as i'm concerned.

Collin

harrymanback wrote:

Catch-22 is simply a no win situation -- and i think in my case (like the movie) there is circular logic as i want the pres to not be a rebulican, but the one who speaks about change has no experience, but the one with experience does not know where he is when he lands, so i go with the other option, but he will hurt my wallet, so i go with the rebublican, and we start all over again.

as for not voting for either of them, i am in jersey, so that is an option since my vote is practically meaningless.

I was always taught that a catch-22 was a situation, a problem which cannot be solved because the solution is denied by the regulations and rules that are inherent to this particular problem.

A student who just graduated might hear he needs experience to get work, but you can only get experience by getting a job.

Anyway, this isn't really a Logics thread, but a thread about a shitty political situation in the US.

You have other choices, Nader is one and not voting is another one.

Kann

catch22 wrote:

wage gaps over the last 8 years have been increasing at alarming rates. this is dangerous. we are dependent on a service economy, and that means we need a wide base of consumers. that means we need broad wealth.

Nicely put, I wonder why this isn't a widely accepted stance. It does seem logical : better distributed money = more consumers

cincybearcat

Kann wrote:

Nicely put, I wonder why this isn't a widely accepted stance. It does seem logical : better distributed money = more consumers

It's the other part of that....widely distributed money = less incentive to improve = less investing in business (especially small business)

Anytime you just give people things, including money, you take a little bit of their independence and drive to improve away.

I'm sure there is a happy medium in their somewhere.

fuck

decides2dream wrote:

as i have always stated in support of my personal choices for candidates...we EACH have to find our own personal focus and base our personal decisions on that. absolutely nothing wrong with basing YOUR choice on what is most important to YOU. we cannot change everything, all at once...as we may want or desire. so why not find the issues that are near and dear, and find your best alignment? always been my thinking.....but for me, it's about the greater good and/or the bigger picture as it were. there is no one candidate who meets all my critera, ever...so go with the one who most closely emulates what i desire most.

that wasn't exactly what I was saying, but yeah.

Kann

cincybearcat wrote:

It's the other part of that....widely distributed money = less incentive to improve = less investing in business (especially small business)
Anytime you just give people things, including money, you take a little bit of their independence and drive to improve away.

I don't think reducing the income gap can be done by giving money away either, equal redistribution among the whole population obviously won't work. But it's possible to enact policies to reduce inequalities in terms of income (raising the minimum wage for instance) without devaluating work.