Is Mitt Romney on crack??

carguy123 wrote: "This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your president," Romney said. "You have that president today."

Is the strongest nation on Earth the same as the strongest football player on the team; the first one to croak from overexertion?

carguy123 wrote: You'd be amazed at how many people are employed under the military spending that don't do things that go pop. A lot of my customers are employed under that military spending budget so if that is cut so is my income.

I am sick of hearing about wasteful spending being necessary to "create jobs". The government can't create jobs by spending money on things we don't need any more than I can alleviate hunger by cutting off my own foot and eating it. I don't disagree with the government spending money, I just think we should spend a higher proportion of it on things that tangibly directly improve the lives of our own citizens, or have the potential to pay back in increased productivity and economic competitiveness. Stuff like health care, education, science, transportation, parks, and all that other nonsense the right wants to privatize until it disappears.

Who said anything about servicemen? I'm talking all the support personnel.

But the real issue is that we need to stay strong enough to deter others from attacking but we need to be able to respond it quick manner should the unthinkable happen.

Unless we stay on top the time to come from the bottom to a winning position probably would be the difference between winning and losing.

I don't want to have to learn Chinese in school.

carguy123 wrote: Who said anything about servicemen? I'm talking all the support personnel. But the real issue is that we need to stay strong enough to deter others from attacking but we need to be able to respond it quick manner should the unthinkable happen. Unless we stay on top the time to come from the bottom to a winning position probably would be the difference between winning and losing. I don't want to have to learn Chinese in school.

When China owns 51% of America, do we become Chinese, or do they become American?

How strong do we need to be? At some point, will we go broke just maintaining our fleet? Will we even want to live in a world where we have to use a quarter of our available firepower?

Air superiority was a good thing. I'll pay higher taxes to have that back and be happy to do it.

MitchellC wrote: How strong do we need to be? At some point, will we go broke just maintaining our fleet? Will we even want to live in a world where we have to use a quarter of our available firepower?

It's amazing how easily people forget.

THE WHOLE WORLD WAS ALMOST COMPLETELY TAKEN OVER BY ONE COUNTRY 60 YEARS AGO.

That society that could have been is not one I'd ever wish on anyone. And it could have VERY easily have been reality. You are able to take such a casual stance towards military might because of how (relatively) peaceful society has been since then.

If there was a sudden, PERMANENT shortage of (insert resource here) to keep a countries citizens alive, what do you think would happen? Without the perfect timing of the world learning how to use the planet in a renewable manner and everyone feeling good towards each other, war can almost be expected. When somebody first strikes, it doesn't really give you the opportunity to build up an army. You either have it or you don't.

Josh wrote: I am sick of hearing about wasteful spending being necessary to "create jobs". The government can't create jobs by spending money on things we don't need any more than I can alleviate hunger by cutting off my own foot and eating it. I don't disagree with the government spending money, I just think we should spend a higher proportion of it on things that tangibly directly improve the lives of our own citizens, or have the potential to pay back in increased productivity and economic competitiveness.

You had a resonably good post going right up until this:

Stuff like health care, education, science, transportation, parks, and all that other nonsense the right wants to privatize until it disappears.

Where do get this lame-butt stuff? Your head? Someone else's rantings? Either way, it's an example of a gross exerageration (at least) and shows a lack of critical thinking.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy but, please, try harder to not be a blindfolded shill.

oldsaw wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Trickle down economics has never worked but it's a great way to fatten your donors pockets while pretending that you care about anyone who's not rich.

That old "trickle-up" theory has worked so well.......

Well...yeah. I cite America from 1945 into 1970. It's called a strong middle class. Works great! Low income disparity makes for a strong nation.

Xceler8x wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Trickle down economics has never worked but it's a great way to fatten your donors pockets while pretending that you care about anyone who's not rich.

That old "trickle-up" theory has worked so well.......

Well...yeah. I cite America from 1945 into 1970. It's called a strong middle class. Works great! Low income disparity makes for a strong nation.

You mean the years when the US was in the unique position to have the means and capacity to supply a world recuperating from the devastation of a world war?

The time before the US implemented well-intended, generous welfare programs that became fiscal burdens because they were continually expanded, poorly administered and had evolved into indespensable pools of voters?

Before the rest of the world caught-up with the US's ability to produce and then created business environments more amenable to the needs of manufacturers and corporations?

A lot of things have changed since 1970............

oldsaw wrote: Where do get this lame-butt stuff? Your head? Someone else's rantings? Either way, it's an example of a gross exerageration (at least) and shows a lack of critical thinking. You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy but, please, try harder to not be a blindfolded shill.

Who exactly am I shilling for? I didn't vote for Obama, I'm a registered independent (was previously a republican primarily to vote against Bush in primaries). I vote for the candidate not the party. To be brutally honest, if anyone's behaving like a shill on here it's you. I don't happen to fit in neatly with any prescribed ideology. I would be a libertarian, but I think they're too focused on the total elimination of government, which would make us all anything but free. I want nothing in life more than rational free choice for all, I just don't think that's even possible if there isn't a government to ensure others don't prevent your free choices. if I think the best government is one that provides the basis for its citizens to make what they can of their lives based on their choices and their abilities rather than their lineage or economic status, and the best economic system is not anarchy/lack of economic control, but a free market system that seeks to make all transactions as fair as possible. That means not allowing people to take advantage of one another (usurious interest, misleading contracts) or allowing corporations to exploit externalities for a profit (make them pay for environmental damage, etc). I think the means to make us free to live our lives to the utmost of our abilities should be available to all (education, infrastructure, health care), and that if we were able to make life choices based on our capabilities and desires rather than being beholden to corporations for survival we'd be infinitely more powerful and successful as a whole.

I think communism is just as stupid as you do, but the fear of it seems to have prevented this nation from keeping up with the rest of the developed world in terms of providing for its citizens' basic needs. The alarming thing to me is that we are now more and more resembling the post-communist nations that we so desperately wanted to avoid becoming. Russia's and China's wealth are growing dramatically, but nearly all of it is being accumulated by a ruling overclass of the politically connected, who get to exploit public, natural and government resources for their gain at the expense of the rest of the citizens' health and well-being. Sound familiar?

With all the talk about throwing more money at education, what specifically would you like to see happen?

I'll see if I can find the article again, but basically a big chunk the nation's teachers were poor students, with the lowest acceptance scores to get into college. And the ones who went on to get Master's, had the lowest entry scores of students going into Master's programs.

So are you guys REALLY ready to pony up the amount of money necessary to hire BETTER teachers who are accountable for their performance?

aircooled wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Almost as brilliant as raising taxes on job creators in an effort to "create jobs!"

I am going to jump on this one. This statement always bugged me (and not because it is a pundit standard) because it doesn't really make sense to me. First of all, let me state, I don't like the idea of raising taxes in general when the government is currently so inefficient / misguided. But, raising taxes on PEOPLE who make over (let's say) $200,000. I really don't see this affecting job CREATION. People that make that kind of money are generally involved in successful businesses certainly. But unless they are idiots, the keep their business money and personal money SEPARATE. So letting them keep less money does not cost their business money. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but business expenses are deductible from business income (lowering taxes). So basically the more you spend on your business, the less tax you pay (I don't know if payroll is considered a business expense though). So, in a way, even if business taxes were raised, more taxes encourages business spending (not that I think this is a generally viable economic plan). One comment I heard on this used as an example was a dentist who was worried he would not be able to hire another person. Well, come on now, if you are making over $200,000 a year in a personally owned business (I don't know if dentist incorporate their businesses in some way) you are making pretty damn good money, and maybe giving up a $20,000-$30,000 to hire someone to help you out (not necessarily bringing in more business to cover the costs) is not a huge deal. Tell me why I am wrong, please. What am I missing here?

according to a report I read in the Christian Science Monitor ( yeah I realize that they are totally unbiased )

I had been hearing these statistics for yrs and just recently ran across this

[one more thing to consider when we talk about raising taxes on business is that business DON'T pay taxes.... every penny they pay out in taxes are passed on to the consumer eventually ... I know it's radical, but I say lower taxes on business.... more profit , some will lower prices to try to garner a larger % of the consumer $ .... so more spending ( the companies that try to keep the increased profits would loose market share.... ) anyway that's my take on business taxes]

To put it in numbers, according to the analysis, the top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes.

The numbers were reported by Citizens for Tax Justice, a research group that supports progressive tax rates, and drawn from calculations by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Note that these numbers look at the broad mix of US taxes, not just income taxes. Federal gas taxes, payroll taxes, and state sales taxes offset the progressive tilts of the income tax and estate tax.

The report also sheds light from another angle, showing the percentage of income that each group pays in total taxes. Lower-income groups pay a smaller – but still significant – share of their incomes in taxes. For example, the lowest fifth of earners pay, on average, 16 percent of their income in taxes. At the higher end of the scale, the top fifth pay a bit more than 30 percent of their income in taxes, not much higher than the next fifth down.

And within that top tier, the top 1 percent pay 30 percent of their income in taxes, which is actually a bit less than the 31 percent of income that the next 9 percent of taxpayers pay.

Another research group, the Tax Foundation, which supports low tax rates, offers an analysis of the federal income tax in isolation. According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1 percent of earners account for 20 percent of "adjusted gross income" (an Internal Revenue Service measure) and pay 38 percent of income taxes. That shows how the income tax itself is progressive.

Other taxes often regressive

The contrast between this number and the tally by Citizens for Tax Justice also shows how other taxes levied in the US are often regressive in their impact on different income groups.

The current structure of tax brackets has rates that start at 10 percent of income at the low end and rise to 35 percent for the highest earners. In the middle are brackets of 15, 25, 28, and 33 percent. That top bracket doesn't mean the rich pay 35 percent of their adjusted gross income in taxes. Deductions and other factors lower their effective rate to 23 percent of income, the Tax Foundation reckons.

For comparison, the average tax rate for all taxpayers is 12 percent of adjusted income.

Of course, politicians and voters will have different views on what these numbers mean – what tax system is fair and optimal. And tax rates are just part of a larger policy puzzle that also entails thinking about the right level of federal spending and what kind of taxes are best for the economy and jobs. But the reports give an important benchmark of how much taxpayers are contributing now.

I can't believe I was dumb enough to click on this thread.

"Vote for me because that other guy is an idiot who wants to ruin this great nation by wasting your tax dollars on something we've already got more than enough of! I'm the only one who can really make this country a better stronger place."

Salanis wrote: "Vote for me because that other guy is an idiot who wants to ruin this great nation by wasting your tax dollars on something we've already got more than enough of! I'm the only one who can *really* make this country a better stronger place."

Yup, that just about sums up every campaign since Washington. George that is.

carguy123 wrote: I don't want to have to learn Chinese in school.

What ever happened to the strategy of knowing your enemy that Sun Tzu recommended in the Art of War.

Oh yes. He wrote that in Chinese.

I'm having to learn some Chinese due to a soon to be daughter and law and her family. That's not easy!

stroker wrote: I can't believe I was dumb enough to click on this thread.

Yeah, I am still trying to figure out who tried to take over the world in 1951.