Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
X7 To which I say you're underestimating how much a government costs to run. You're wanting a system with government provision with Sweden, massively less taxes on the poor and only slightly higher taxes on the rich. The number won't work.
X6 I don't.
X5 Yeah but the dems are also going after things that they have even less of a chance getting past the GOP (gun control anyone?).
edited 4th Apr '13 3:37:43 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI never support cutting social programs. Now, how about the government stop giving bloated contracts to its pet contractors (Google MTA and 2nd avenue extension, or NYC City Time). How about we actually invest in things that pay for themselves like the infrastructure projects Obama constantly gives speeches about?
And how about we stop finding these fucking useless endless wars to keep fighting?
I don't think that's a valid question. Stealing $20 from a millionaire is still theft. I think the current system of 40% is perfect.
edited 4th Apr '13 3:38:49 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor![]()
![]()
Um... great, you agree with me and a lot of Democrats on how to cut/what not to?
edited 4th Apr '13 3:40:41 PM by TheGirlWithPointyEars
She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog![]()
![]()
![]()
Works for me, if you can get the numbers to work then I'm all in. But I doubt you will get them to work. Plus as much as it's nice to hit on the military and the US defense budget, right now we're behind reminded exactly why the US pays out for troops all over the world. So gits like North Kroea can't throw their weight around. Should other nations chip in more? Yes. Should the US military still not be so overgrown, or sent into stupid wars? Yes. But sometimes you gotta fight and you wana be able to win.
edited 4th Apr '13 3:41:18 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
The republicans have blocked anything. You want responsibility on the democrats? What should they do?
Our government was not designed for the current situation. And you need to answer my question about what you consider an ideal tax rate in terms of effect on the person being taxed. (Because your argument is that excessive taxation is wrong because of the effect on the person being taxed.)
edited 4th Apr '13 3:43:13 PM by DrTentacles
@Starship Concerning stopping useless wars
You'll have to elect a Jimmy Carter style candidate if you want a lack of wars,...if there is one thing that the extremist conservatives in the 50's (think Robert Taft) had over everyone else correct,it was that interventionalism was a stupid idea.
But ever since Truman,...every president except for Jimmy Carter seemed to go out of their way to get into a war somewhere that wasn't their business.
For if there is one dangerous ideology both parties currently espouse and no sane politican can elected without,...it's a neoconservative foreign policy
edited 4th Apr '13 3:44:47 PM by terlwyth
A 40% Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $250,000 worked for Clinton, so I suppose it could work today.
I personally want 70% so we can pay off our debt and fix Social Security.
edited 4th Apr '13 3:44:35 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Stop aggravating the problem by getting partisan themselves?
I mean, seriously. What are they thinking with half of these gun control bills? Do they honestly believe that's going to make the Republicans want to play nice?
Edit: The penalty of tax evasion for a corporation should be to cut the corporation up and and sell it to its competitors at cut-rate price, for one thing. Close all the loopholes, then bring the corporate tax down.
edited 4th Apr '13 3:46:29 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.Please, (and I am being completely sincere) tell me how exactly congress, either side of congress for that matter, can actually get anything done at the moment? What steps would you advise the democrats to take to get through laws and proposals? Last I checked, the opposition has blatantly said it was no longer interested in cooperation.
So lease, tell me, what do you think the solution is.
If, by the way, find out how to generate the trillion some odd dollars short we fall in terms of expedinture without cutting social benefits, everyone would like to know.
I'm saying gun control is symptomatic, not the source of the problem. And it's the reason why the GOP won't get any less obstructionist over time.
Edit: I think the corporate tax thing I proposed could work.
edited 4th Apr '13 3:48:23 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.No Doctor. My reasoning is that if you are already getting increased taxes from increased income, then leave it be, and don't jack up the rates simply because someone is making more. That's the part that's not fair.
A guy making $4 million and a woman making $50 million should be taxed the same 40%. The government is getting $1.6 off the first guy, and $20 million of the lady. Crying poverty still...that makes no sense to me.
EDIT: I assure you if you got the companies that see billions a year like Citigroup, BP, and the rest to actually open up their books, we'd close the deficit in three years flat. Word.
edited 4th Apr '13 3:50:02 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorLike others have said, you seem to be underestimating the money a government needs. You say you support social programs, but at present we can't keep the ones we have (which arguably aren't sufficient to begin with) without much higher tax rates for high earners.
edited 4th Apr '13 3:53:07 PM by RTaco
Obama presses donors to help return Pelosi to Speakership
EDIT: How much money does it take to run the country? Either way we managed to get a surplus back in the 1990s, and the Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $250, 000 was only 40%.
I still want 70%
edited 4th Apr '13 3:58:16 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

A) there is a difference between won't and can't. And do not even begin to imply that the democrats are the only ones too friendly to big corp. That's endemic of all politicians in most of the world.
b) If you think having illegal immigrants pay thier share of taxes (ignoring that most are so low in terms of income thanks to exploitation and are paid below minimum wage and that were they citizens wouldn't be giving that much anyway) that we could fund the nation for a season let alone a year, then I must ask you to look at the Us's annual bills .versus the number of immigrants.
Like I said there is a limit to how much can be cut before the government, and society, stop functioning. W Hat are we going to cut? Education? Cause we're already scrapping the bottom of that barrel. Security? Police? Caase many districts are understaffed and overworked as is. Where are these magical cuts going to come from without causing more harm than just raising the tax rate on thoseeleast affected by it. I'm curious.
edited 4th Apr '13 3:32:56 PM by IConfuseMe