• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Really. they only thought of this now? Not 6 months back? WTF

http://thehill.com/blogs/transporta...to-redirect-470-million-in-idle-earmark-money

The Obama administration said Friday that it would use $470 million in unused money earmarked by members of previous Congresses to pay for new transportation projects.

The White House said the money comes from appropriations bills that were passed by lawmakers from 2003 to 2006. Since taking over the House in 2010, Republicans have banned earmarks, and have touted the fact that the recently approved $105 billion transportation bill did not include any.

But President Obama said Friday that he was going to put the money that was already appropriated to use as a part of his "We can't wait" campaign against congressional inaction.
Click to expand...
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Is it too much to ask for someone in the media while interviewing Romney to ask if if he thinks it's fair that he paid 13.9% of his over $20 million in income to to taxes while Americans who make $30k a year pay more.

I'm curious how he'd handle that question if a reporter pressed him not to skirt the issue.

Who am I kidding. It is too much to ask.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Romney campaign: He can't tell you specifically what he's going to do if he becomes President. He's running for president for Pete's sake!

Advisers say the campaign has no plans to pivot from its previous view that diving into details during a general-election race would be suicidal. [...]

"The nature of running a presidential campaign is that you're communicating direction to the American people," a Romney adviser said. "Campaigns that are about specifics, particularly in today's environment, get tripped up."
Click to expand...

Look, there is some truth to what they're saying, but who the fuck actually SAYS THIS OUT LOUD?
 
N

NullPointer

Member
Black Mamba said:
Is it too much to ask for someone in the media while interviewing Romney to ask if if he thinks it's fair that he paid 13.9% of his over $20 million in income to to taxes while Americans who make $30k a year pay more.

I'm curious how he'd handle that question if a reporter pressed him not to skirt the issue.

Who am I kidding. It is too much to ask.
Click to expand...
He'd say this:

Mitt Romney said:
I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president. I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.
Click to expand...
[source]
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Gruco said:
So I just finished reading The New New Deal. It's the second book I've read looking into the Obama presidency. The first was Confidence Men. I really like and recommend both.

Despite both having a very different focus, I feel like they actually complement one another well. The reason I say that is that in my eyes the central story of Obama's first two years in office is the disconnect between the excitement of far-reaching progress and the disappointment of failing to meet higher and further-reaching expectations. New New Deal thus does a good job of playing glass half full to Confidence Men's glass half empty.

I still remember when the stimulus was coming out and reading through how far reaching it was. For someone who followed Obama's campaign closely, it was a pretty overwhelming payday. Health Care IT, smart grid investments, energy R&D, Race to the Top, Making Work Pay, superfund sites, high speed rail, all at once, all within a month of coming into office. Which is of course super awkward when you want to list the reasons you like Obama so much, and say "the stimulus" referring to like 18 different things, not one of which is know to low information voters.

Anyway, what I liked about this book:

1) Digs into the "reinvestment" portion of the stimulus in a fair amount of detail, looking at what its accomplished. Particularly detailed on the energy front.

2) Lot of analysis in the "good governance" angle of the stimulus. Given the enormous surge of funds relative to the various department's administrative capacities, Biden's relentless focus on this issue, and the positive results, this is a really cool and under-reported story.

3) Thoughtful recounting of events to help explain how Obama lost the messaging on the stimulus so completely. The public's inability to distinguish between ARRA and TARP, combined with Republican pummelling, an almost incoherent mess of programs, and the white house's insistence that good policy speaks for itself all play various roles.

4) Nice to hear Rahm and Biden's take on what was going down when the Senate demanded a pound of flesh for cloture. Interesting look at how that played out and caused tension between the white house, senate and house.

What I did not like about this book:

1) Description of programs too focused on absolute effects rather than relative. The only reasons for a journalist to do this is because they don't understand why the latter is more important or because they just want to say the thing that sounds better.

2) More partisan dogma than I'd have hoped for. Not that I disagree with Grunwald when he goes this route, it just wasn't what I wanted to get out of the book. Presumably he simply knew who his target audience was going to be on this one and wanted to slap them on the back a few times.

3) Would have been nice had Grunwald trimmed down the history a bit, and dug into some of the other programs and thoroughly as he did energy.

Overall, I think this book in interesting, informative, and recommend it to anyone. Forceful and genuine defense of a great bill that deserves forceful and genuine defenders.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your impressions. I've been hearing great things about it.

Could Ryan's tax rate enable a more honed and effective attack from the Obama campaign?
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Black Mamba said:
Is it too much to ask for someone in the media while interviewing Romney to ask if if he thinks it's fair that he paid 13.9% of his over $20 million in income to to taxes while Americans who make $30k a year pay more.

I'm curious how he'd handle that question if a reporter pressed him not to skirt the issue.

Who am I kidding. It is too much to ask.
Click to expand...

Lol. You are naive if you think that people making 30k are paying 13%
 
S

speculawyer

Member
sc0la said:
Now the Family Research Council is blaming the Southern Poverty Law Center for the shooting.

A social conservative group, that labels and lobbies against a class of citezen, arguing that the use of ostracizing language against a group foments violence against them...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/17/us/us-southern-poverty-law-center-profile/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Click to expand...
:-/

You know, FRC . . . I'm going to assume for a minute that you are are serious. And you really believe that someone listening to the SPLC could hear what they say decide to (wrongly) act on it with violence. I agree . . . that is totally terrible. The SPLC should make mention they don't believe any vigilante act upon information they learn from the SPLC.

But imagine if the SPLC said things and claimed that they were speaking for god and that a lot of people believed in that SPLC version of god. Wouldn't that then really put them in position where they should be very careful what they say? Know anyone in that position? Those people should really be careful to give a message of tolerance and understanding and nonviolence.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
No one has drudged up Reverend Wright yet this time. I'm kinda surprised. I just wonder if it is one of those MAD (mutually assured destruction) things. I certainly don't expect the Romney campaign to do that but Hannity went all crazy over it last time. Is he mentioning it at all this time? If not, is it because then Romney's church stuff becomes fair game and that stuff even makes Hannity a little uncomfortable?
 
F

Four_Chamber

Member
sc0la said:
Now the Family Research Council is blaming the Southern Poverty Law Center for the shooting.

A social conservative group, that labels and lobbies against a class of citezen, arguing that the use of ostracizing language against a group foments violence against them...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/17/us/us-southern-poverty-law-center-profile/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Click to expand...

I've seen it all- the same groups that demonize others as existential threats to our existence are now accusing other groups of "destructive" speech? Its horrible that the guard there was shot absolutely but the fact that FRC is politicizing this is disgusting.
 
J

Jooney

Member
speculawyer said:
No one has drudged up Reverend Wright yet this time. I'm kinda surprised. I just wonder if it is one of those MAD (mutually assured destruction) things. I certainly don't expect the Romney campaign to do that but Hannity went all crazy over it last time. Is he mentioning it at all this time? If not, is it because then Romney's church stuff becomes fair game and that stuff even makes Hannity a little uncomfortable?
Click to expand...

Bringing up Reverend Wright will remind people that Obama is a Christian, and not a secret Muslim.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Ma boy Steve Benen nails it as usual:

I was reading Charles Krauthammer's column this morning, and noticed that he's adopted the Romney/Ryan talking points on Medicare -- the far-right columnist accused President Obama of "robbing Granny's health care."

My first instinct was to explain how wrong this is, but it occurred to me how disjointed the nature of the debate has become. The fight over Medicare, on a conceptual level, got off track recently and has been careening in the wrong direction ever since.

Given how critically important this is in the presidential election, let's pause for a moment to consider the bigger picture.

The Romney/Ryan argument is that Obama/Biden is cutting Medicare, hurting seniors, and undermining the financial security of the Medicare system. All week, I've been making an effort to set the record straight by pointing to the facts: Obama's savings strengthen the system; benefits for seniors have been expanded, not cut; the Republican budget plan embraced the same savings Romney/Ryan is now condemning; the GOP privatization alternative is dangerous; etc.

The facts are, to be sure, still true, and they're important. But let's ignore the trees and look at the forest.

What is Medicare? It's a massive, government-run system of socialized medicine. It's wildly popular, very successful, and one of the pillars of modern Democratic governance. This government-run system of socialized medicine was created by Democrats against the opposition of conservative Republicans, and it's Democrats who've fought to protect it for more than a half-century.

Or to summarize, the left loves Medicare and always has; the right hates Medicare and always has. For liberals, the system is a celebrated ideal; for conservatives it's an unconstitutional, big-government outrage in desperate need of privatization.

In 2012, once we get past all of the talking points and attack ads, we're left with this: Romney/Ryan wants you to believe they're the liberals. No, seriously. Think about what the Republican presidential ticket, Fox News, Krauthammer, Donald Trump, and the Republican National Committee have been saying all week: those mean, rascally Democrats cut our beloved Medicare and voters should be outraged.

In other words, the argument pushed by the most right-wing major-party ticket in a generation is that Barack Obama is a left-wing socialist who wants government-run socialized medicine and that Barack Obama is a far-right brute who wants to undermine government-run socialized medicine.

If you care about protecting the popular system of socialized medicine, the argument goes, your best bet would be to put it the hands of conservative Republicans who steadfastly oppose the very idea of a government-run system of socialized medicine.

The questions voters should ask themselves, then, are incredibly simple: putting aside literally everything else you've heard this week, why in the world would a Democratic president want to "gut" Medicare? Why would liberal members of Congress and the AARP join a Democratic president in trying to undermine the system Democrats created and celebrate?

Why would voters expect conservative Republicans to be the trusted champions of socialized medicine?
Click to expand...

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/17/13335003-missing-the-medicare-forest-for-the-trees?lite

I posted an article yesterday that offered a similar argument. This is something Obama and the dems need to hammer relentlessly til November.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
AlteredBeast said:
And even then there are all sorts of deductions available to the majority of wage earners beyond 50k
Click to expand...

Well, it really depends on where you live and your situation. If you live in an area where you can buy a reasonably priced home, the home mortgage deduction is a huge lucrative deduction. But some people make relatively good money but live in places where the cost to buy is outrageous and the cost to rent is high. W/o a big mortgage deduction, you can end up paying a pretty high rate.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Oblivion said:
Ma boy Steve Benen nails it as usual:



http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/17/13335003-missing-the-medicare-forest-for-the-trees?lite

I posted an article yesterday that offered a similar argument. This is something Obama and the dems need to hammer relentlessly til November.
Click to expand...

I think the more interesting thing about that is how popular and sacred socialist programs get in the US after they are passed. You even have the right defending socialist principals like the redistribution of wealth(and that's what social security is except its not rich to poor its young to old)
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
speculawyer said:
Well, it really depends on where you live and your situation. If you live in an area where you can buy a reasonably priced home, the home mortgage deduction is a huge lucrative deduction. But some people make relatively good money but live in places where the cost to buy is outrageous and the cost to rent is high. W/o a big mortgage deduction, you can end up paying a pretty high rate.
Click to expand...

True, but even then, there is the standard deduction. Regardless, it is still shocking that he only pays 13%. and hilarious that someone that makes 100 times less than he does pays a higher tax rate than he does. If he were savvy, he would turn this into a discussion that goes something like this:

"I paid the tax rate expected to me with such a convoluted and loophole-filled tax code. Following the law, I was able, as a millionaire several times over, to pay a percentage that most Americans wouldn't be able to, even if they made .001% of the income that I did. I propose to make taxes fair. Not raise them, per se, because I feel like that the tax rates are high enough as they already are, but by eliminating loopholes and enforcing tax rates as they are written, everyone will finally pay their "fair share." At the same time, those same people who make the bulk of their earnings from investments will be expected to pay taxes as if it were typical income. Studies have shown that there is no correlation between capital gains tax rates and the rate of investment.

As this happens, tax receipts will skyrocket while tax rates do not. It is a win/win for businesses and individuals alike, as well as benefiting the communities and infrastructure of this great nation. *eagle tears*"

Signed,

Intelligent Politician..."

Too bad that nobody like this actually exists.

I would vote for him on this face alone if he came out and said this, with a detailed plan to go with it.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
AlteredBeast said:
True, but even then, there is the standard deduction. Regardless, it is still shocking that he only pays 13%. and hilarious that someone that makes 100 times less than he does pays a higher tax rate than he does. If he were savvy, he would turn this into a discussion that goes something like this:

"I paid the tax rate expected to me with such a convoluted and loophole-filled tax code. Following the law, I was able, as a millionaire several times over, to pay a percentage that most Americans wouldn't be able to, even if they made .001% of the income that I did. I propose to make taxes fair. Not raise them, per se, because I feel like that the tax rates are high enough as they already are, but by eliminating loopholes and enforcing tax rates as they are written, everyone will finally pay their "fair share." At the same time, those same people who make the bulk of their earnings from investments will be expected to pay taxes as if it were typical income. Studies have shown that there is no correlation between capital gains tax rates and the rate of investment.

As this happens, tax receipts will skyrocket while tax rates do not. It is a win/win for businesses and individuals alike, as well as benefiting the communities and infrastructure of this great nation. *eagle tears*"

Signed,

Intelligent Politician..."

Too bad that nobody like this actually exists.

I would vote for him on this face alone if he came out and said this, with a detailed plan to go with it.
Click to expand...

Hah, this would require that Romney doesn't want every penny he can get his greedy little hands on. I think he wants to continue milking that Capital Gains tax as much as he can for the rest of his life. Would be nice if we had a politician like that though...
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
RDreamer said:
Hah, this would require that Romney doesn't want every penny he can get his greedy little hands on. I think he wants to continue milking that Capital Gains tax as much as he can for the rest of his life. Would be nice if we had a politician like the though...
Click to expand...

I just hope that the reelection campaign and every single news outlet out there repeatedly hammers home the fact the Ryan, who was out-earned by Romney nearly 100 times over last year, paid a much higher tax rate. Shame him into some semblance of sensibility and fairness.



In lighter...and darker news, a big GOP fundraiser in Utah, who went to church with me as a kid (although he was several years older) got arrested a few weeks back on allegations of rape and kidnapping. Keep reaching for that brass ring of "family first" GOP!!
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Cyan said:
My calculation included that. ;)
Click to expand...

I figured it did, but still had to put it in there. I even loaded up the different tax rates and plugged standard deductions into the to see the rates, but yeah, his rate is too low, as well as the other million millionaires in the country.
 
A

AntoneM

Member
AlteredBeast said:
True, but even then, there is the standard deduction. Regardless, it is still shocking that he only pays 13%. and hilarious that someone that makes 100 times less than he does pays a higher tax rate than he does. If he were savvy, he would turn this into a discussion that goes something like this:

"I paid the tax rate expected to me with such a convoluted and loophole-filled tax code. Following the law, I was able, as a millionaire several times over, to pay a percentage that most Americans wouldn't be able to, even if they made .001% of the income that I did. I propose to make taxes fair. Not raise them, per se, because I feel like that the tax rates are high enough as they already are, but by eliminating loopholes and enforcing tax rates as they are written, everyone will finally pay their "fair share." At the same time, those same people who make the bulk of their earnings from investments will be expected to pay taxes as if it were typical income. Studies have shown that there is no correlation between capital gains tax rates and the rate of investment.

As this happens, tax receipts will skyrocket while tax rates do not. It is a win/win for businesses and individuals alike, as well as benefiting the communities and infrastructure of this great nation. *eagle tears*"

Signed,

Intelligent Politician..."

Too bad that nobody like this actually exists.

I would vote for him on this face alone if he came out and said this, with a detailed plan to go with it.
Click to expand...

If he were savvy? Nope, the big money backers of his campaign would let him hang. He has no choice. Plus it's a pretty damn terrible position to take to ask for forgiveness for taking advantage of loopholes (even if you promise to close them) while running for office. Kinda like asking asking a judge to take pity on you as an orphan after you murdered your parents.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
max_cool said:
If he were savvy? Nope, the big money backers of his campaign would let him hang. He has no choice. Plus it's a pretty damn terrible position to ask for forgiveness for taking advantage of loopholes (even if you promise to close them) while running for office. Kinda like asking asking a judge to take pity on you as an orphan after you murdered your parents.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't frame it in an apology sense, but it in a, "yes, it is legal and not dishonest to use every avenue to protect my assets, but we can make reality more fair."

Stays on many GOP messages while actually appearing to be a real and caring human being for once.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Law professor calls bullshit on the 13% claim

Romney is claiming that he paid at least 13% in taxes every year. I call bullshit. As discussed here, Romney had a capital loss carryover in 2010, which means that he realized so many capital losses in 2009 that he couldn’t use them all to offset capital gains.

What’s interesting is that Romney’s claim could be literally true but misleading — which means that Romney is full of bullshit, but not a dirty liar. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a wealthy taxpayer earned $1 million in speaking fees (ordinary income), had a portfolio of investments that increased in value from $100 million to $150 million, and realized $10 million in capital gains and $15 million in capital losses. Net income for tax purposes for the year would be negative, and the taxpayer would pay close to $350,000 in income tax, and would carry forward a capital loss of $5 million. This would show up as a high tax rate – 35% of the $1 million in ordinary income — but doesn’t fairly reflect his economic income.

Romney’s claim may be literally true only because our method of tax accounting doesn’t calculate economic gains until those gains are realized through a sale or some other disposition. Romney may have paid tax at a rate higher than 13% on his 2009 return, but the dollar amount was likely to be embarrassingly small as a percentage of his economic income and wealth. That’s why he doesn’t want to release his tax returns. Normal people don’t think like tax lawyers — they would see a tiny amount of tax paid and recognize the injustice.

Even though Romney’s economic income was probably high in 2009–the Dow went up about 15% that year–savvy investors know they can cherry-pick losses to offset realized gains. The capital loss carry-forward on Romney’s 2010 return suggests that he did just that.
Click to expand...

I don't know a lot about tax stuff, but I do wonder if there's a way to deduce without much error that indeed there's no way he paid more than 13% in 2009, because of what the returns he already released say.
 
P

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
speculawyer said:
No one has drudged up Reverend Wright yet this time. I'm kinda surprised. I just wonder if it is one of those MAD (mutually assured destruction) things. I certainly don't expect the Romney campaign to do that but Hannity went all crazy over it last time. Is he mentioning it at all this time? If not, is it because then Romney's church stuff becomes fair game and that stuff even makes Hannity a little uncomfortable?
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to hear about the real Obama. You know, the one we haven't heard about yet. The big exposé that is suppossed to happen. Any day now. Any day....
 
N

NullPointer

Member
quadriplegicjon said:
I'm still waiting to hear about the real Obama. You know, the one we haven't heard about yet. The big exposé that is suppossed to happen. Any day now. Any day....
Click to expand...
Isn't that the whole idea behind the 2016 movie?

Love Him, Hate Him. You Don't Know Him.

If only we could use some magical alternate universe spanning time machine to see what Obama would've done as a first term President, and could somehow use that information to guide us on our vote. Alas...

cartoon_soldier said:
It is strange nobody has asked Romney campaign yet that if he believes in reviewing several years worth of tax returns before making a VP selection, why can't American people ask for the same before making a choice for President.
Click to expand...
America is not a "quiet room" to have substantive debate with any kind of specific details.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
RDreamer said:
Law professor calls bullshit on the 13% claim



I don't know a lot about tax stuff, but I do wonder if there's a way to deduce without much error that indeed there's no way he paid more than 13% in 2009, because of what the returns he already released say.
Click to expand...

Its the 2008 and 2009 returns Obama campaign wants the world to see and Romney doesn't. I don't think we will ever see them.

It is strange nobody has asked Romney campaign yet that if he believes in reviewing several years worth of tax returns before making a VP selection, why can't American people ask for the same before making a choice for President.
 
The Chosen One

The Chosen One

Member
AlteredBeast said:
I just hope that the reelection campaign and every single news outlet out there repeatedly hammers home the fact the Ryan, who was out-earned by Romney nearly 100 times over last year, paid a much higher tax rate. Shame him into some semblance of sensibility and fairness.
Click to expand...

Ryan's income is also more in line with the typical small business owner. You know, an actual job creator at the local level. People who make 200-400k a year still have to work pretty hard for it, whether it's a small business or salaried position. It's crazy that their tax rate is higher anywhere from 40-60% than people like Romney.

For me, I just hope at least ONE reporter/journalist asks Romney how much roughly he'll pay in taxes under his new proposed tax plan. If Romney is incapable of giving an answer, then he has no business setting tax policy if he doesn't know how much he would pay in his new system.

And if the reporter could actually get Romney to admit that he would be paying a tax rate in the single digits, then everyone would see just how absurd it is to keep giving tax cuts to the rich. It would finally hit home to even some conservatives that the very rich don't need additional tax cuts right now and it will just explode the deficit even further. If they can't do their job creating juju at the low 13% rate, then why are we giving them even more tax cuts?
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Wow, Soledad is really keeping this up. In addition to arguing again about the 700 billion cut, she's now arguing with a republican that's claiming a "premium support program" is different from a voucher program... Is this really how they're going to do this? They're going to use doublespeak?


The Chosen One said:
For me, I just hope at least ONE reporter/journalist asks Romney how much roughly he'll pay in taxes under his new proposed tax plan. If Romney is incapable of giving an answer, then he has no business setting tax policy if he doesn't know how much he would pay in his new system. =
Click to expand...

Hell yes, that would be a great question.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Aaron Strife said:
Romney and Ryan are now attacking Obama for spending too little.

Fucking hilarious.
Click to expand...

Link? Cause this might break my irony meter, and I've been meaning to have it replaced.
Unless you are talking about the Medicare attack, which I guess is what you are saying, hehe.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Suikoguy said:
Link? Cause this might break my irony meter, and I've been meaning to have it replaced.
Unless you are talking about the Medicare attack, which I guess is what you are saying, hehe.
Click to expand...

Probably talking about this

Along with the medicare attack, there's this:

But it’s not the only case in which the Romney-Ryan ticket has suggested more government is better. In another break with a position once supported by House Republicans, the campaign is demanding that Congress reverse defense cuts that were included in last year’s debt-ceiling package. Romney’s making the case on explicitly Keynesian grounds, warning that by lowering military spending, the federal government won’t spend enough money on jobs.
Click to expand...

That reasoning the Romney camp is giving is delicious, I must say.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
DeathbyVolcano said:
Hey now :mad:

He's buddy buddy with Christie because he has to be. He's the mayor of one of the biggest cities in NJ. It's like Carcetti's relationship with the governor of Maryland and and Clay Davis.

Booker differs greatly from Christie in social reform.
Click to expand...

Ehh... if by social reform, you mean enacting budget cuts and trying to privatize city resources, then sure, he differs greatly from Christie.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
RDreamer said:
Wow, Soledad is really keeping this up. In addition to arguing again about the 700 billion cut, she's now arguing with a republican that's claiming a "premium support program" is different from a voucher program... Is this really how they're going to do this? They're going to use doublespeak?




Hell yes, that would be a great question.
Click to expand...

Ok, I agree she did a great job that time. And thank god she actually asked him to explain what "premium support program" even means. He clearly was unprepared and instead shot out a bunch of buzz words (choice...flexibility...flexibility...competition). Under the Ryan plan, the government basically gives you x amount of money to buy insurance, based on your income/needs. That amount does not scale with the rise in health care costs, meaning a senior citizen will be paying more every year, or every time insurance companies decide to jack up rates.

It's basically like controlling your water bill by taking one shower a week.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
AlteredBeast said:
"I paid the tax rate expected to me with such a convoluted and loophole-filled tax code. Following the law, I was able, as a millionaire several times over, to pay a percentage that most Americans wouldn't be able to, even if they made .001% of the income that I did. I propose to make taxes fair. Not raise them, per se, because I feel like that the tax rates are high enough as they already are, but by eliminating loopholes and enforcing tax rates as they are written, everyone will finally pay their "fair share." At the same time, those same people who make the bulk of their earnings from investments will be expected to pay taxes as if it were typical income. Studies have shown that there is no correlation between capital gains tax rates and the rate of investment.

As this happens, tax receipts will skyrocket while tax rates do not. It is a win/win for businesses and individuals alike, as well as benefiting the communities and infrastructure of this great nation. *eagle tears*"

Signed,

Intelligent Politician..."

Too bad that nobody like this actually exists.

I would vote for him on this face alone if he came out and said this, with a detailed plan to go with it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he'd have to believe in that first.

Yeah, I gotta say, as a person that really doesn't like the social agenda of the GOP, I'm damn lucky that they don't say that.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
speculawyer said:
Yeah, he'd have to believe in that first.

Yeah, I gotta say, as a person that really doesn't like the social agenda of the GOP, I'm damn lucky that they don't say that.
Click to expand...

I understand your last part, it would definitely make election time harder for sensible people everywhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Frostpunk 2 | Review Thread
Review
12
1K
geary replied
Has the internet regressed reporting of news?
Clickbait
30
2K
StueyDuck replied
Exposing German Hops
2 3
115
8K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Star Wars Outlaws | Review Thread
Analysis Review 8 9 10 11 12
571
40K
Gamer_By_Proxy replied
Reynatis (PS4, PS5, Switch, and PC) | Review Thread + Discussion thread
News Review 2
81
9K
drganon replied
Top Bottom