• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

I agree with DVDNeal. The “protocol” violation in this whole situation is that a member of the opposition party invited a critic of the White House to come and speak in the chamber to try and undermine the efforts of the administration on a significant foreign policy issue. Personally, I would find this to be irresponsible regardless of who was in the White House. I think we have very little idea of what takes place in negotiations with a place like Iran and I certainly don’t pretend to know. But I will bet that it is extremely complex and sensitive. I am also sure that Netanyahu has expressed all the points he made yesterday directly to the administration. In fact, I know he has. The reasons around this visit seem to be about partisan politics on the US side and about reelection on the Israeli side.

Was this against the law or some rule? Not that I can see, but that still doesn't mean that it wasn't reckless and irresponsible, which, IMHO, I think it was.
 
Looks like Darrin Wilson, the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, will not face any federal charges. I do think it is interesting that they found racial bias in the department. I am sure that actions will be taken to address these problems given that the area is under a microscope again. CNN LINK.

I hope there are no more riots, but given the history of this case, I anticipate someone will start something.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ted-cruz-looks-to-revive-the-evangelical-fervor-of-114454551001.html

Exactly why Ted Cruz can't win. He looks to go back to the 80's...

Well wait a minute, maybe he is on to something:
"Imagine instead of economic stagnation, booming economic growth," he said. "Imagine young people coming out of school with four, five, six job offers." That line got a loud ovation.

"Instead of a tax code that crushes innovation, that imposes burdens on families struggling to make ends met, imagine a simple flat tax that lets every American fill out his or her taxes on a postcard," Cruz said to more applause, as if he were Oprah Winfrey handing out free cars to his audience. "Imagine abolishing the IRS."

:r:

"The fact that Ted Cruz was here today is a wakeup call to [us] as Christians," Walker said. He said that Republicans have lost elections in recent years because too many evangelicals have not voted, even though exit polls show that evangelical participation in presidential elections has not ebbed over the last few elections. But Cruz, Walker said, could galvanize greater participation in the way that Falwell, Sr., and fellow Moral Majority founder Pat Robertson did.

Oh, nevermind.

---


Also, on another topic this:

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/group-seeks-to-break-democratic-and-republican-113991021286.html

We need to make it easier to have people get to debates. The more people who are willing to share what they believe, the better. Having Sean Hannity moderate a Republican debate doesn't expose anything. We need candidate who are willing to call out the BS from each other. That can only happen if we allow Independents run and be heard.
 
Last edited:
Hink said:
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ted-cruz-looks-to-revive-the-evangelical-fervor-of-114454551001.html

Exactly why Ted Cruz can't win. He looks to go back to the 80's...

Well wait a minute, maybe he is on to something:
"Imagine instead of economic stagnation, booming economic growth," he said. "Imagine young people coming out of school with four, five, six job offers." That line got a loud ovation.

"Instead of a tax code that crushes innovation, that imposes burdens on families struggling to make ends met, imagine a simple flat tax that lets every American fill out his or her taxes on a postcard," Cruz said to more applause, as if he were Oprah Winfrey handing out free cars to his audience. "Imagine abolishing the IRS."

:r:

"The fact that Ted Cruz was here today is a wakeup call to [us] as Christians," Walker said. He said that Republicans have lost elections in recent years because too many evangelicals have not voted, even though exit polls show that evangelical participation in presidential elections has not ebbed over the last few elections. But Cruz, Walker said, could galvanize greater participation in the way that Falwell, Sr., and fellow Moral Majority founder Pat Robertson did.

Oh, nevermind.
Click to expand...

If it came down to Cruz v. Hillary, I would vote Cruz... however I will not be voting for him in the primary because while his 'flat' tax sounds good, it does not actually work for the benefit of the middle class or lower income ranges. I also think he needs an all of the above approach to energy independence instead of just focusing on oil and the keystone pipeline. Some people have been hamming him about the his lack of job growth comments. Yes, there has been a job growth both most of those jobs have been low paying part time jobs resulting in low to no actual wage growth.

Personally, I would like to see a total revamping of the tax system with a simple graduated tax on all incomes. Those who make within so much of the poverty line would pay zero income tax and there would be zero deductions for anyone. The entire tax code would be a chart that says if your yearly income = y, you pay x. My 6 year old could do my taxes and it would still eliminate the IRS because there would be almost nothing to audit.
 
michaelskis said:
If it came down to Cruz v. Hillary, I would vote Cruz... however I will not be voting for him in the primary because while his 'flat' tax sounds good, it does not actually work for the benefit of the middle class or lower income ranges. I also think he needs an all of the above approach to energy independence instead of just focusing on oil and the keystone pipeline. Some people have been hamming him about the his lack of job growth comments. Yes, there has been a job growth both most of those jobs have been low paying part time jobs resulting in low to no actual wage growth.
Click to expand...

He is probably the worst candidate running. I am pretty confident that if he wins the election half of our country will try and pull a Texas and secede. 8-!;) His religious / social issues will kill his chances, but he will make it interesting for other republicans that is for sure...

michaelskis said:
Personally, I would like to see a total revamping of the tax system with a simple graduated tax on all incomes. Those who make within so much of the poverty line would pay zero income tax and there would be zero deductions for anyone. The entire tax code would be a chart that says if your yearly income = y, you pay x. My 6 year old could do my taxes and it would still eliminate the IRS because there would be almost nothing to audit.
Click to expand...

I like it when we disagree more. I think the concept of "progressive" taxing is pretty much a joke at this point. If Mitt Romney is only paying 14% of his taxes, the system we have of "progressive" rates is a sham. A millionaire will have to pay a lot more than a guy making $10k per year, so it will be progressive in that sense, but I am certain there will be groups that still think more should be paid by the millionaire beyond that percent. I don't agree. If the system is setup to protect those within a certain percentage of the poverty line, they are not being hurt by millionaires "only" paying a flat rate fee. They are still paying $0. The millionaires are not being unfairly expected to prop up the entire system with higher and higher taxes. It would create a very transparent system, and one which could not be weaseled out of by people who can pay for tax help. I like the idea of knowing what taxes would be for the next year as well, as then I could know exactly what to deduct during the year.

The magic would be finding the 0% line, the middle class line, and the cap limit. I am sure the CBO could run numbers that would keep the income the same coming into the government. I would guess the cap will be somewhere around 25%. 11% more of Mitt Romney income would be another $10m into the treasury. I am sure this would be true for most millionaires. This is progressive, transparent, and I would argue more fair.
 
I actually like the idea of a flat tax, but I just don't think it would work. Yes, high school math figuring out 10% (or whatever) of your income is easy, but it would create a regressive tax that would kill the poor and hurt the middle class. Progressive taxes seem to be the way to go. The sliding scale is impossible to figure out, but that's what the CBO is for. Now if you can get rid of all the loopholes, deductions, and everything else, taxes would be easy. I think that's what everyone really wants. I get to claim medical expenses, home ownership, student loans, and more. As much as I enjoy those perks, I say make my life easy and just charge me my fair share, whatever that is.
 
I think you'll be hard-pressed to find someone that doesn't love the idea of a tax system in which you can do your taxes on a post card in under 5 minutes. Or a simple government website where you input 7-8 bits of information and it calculates everything for you.

Most of your individual deductions were created initially to help low income & middle class (child tax credit, education, mortgage interest, etc.). You could ditch those and create simple flat tax, and then implement a universal basic income to all households to deal with the regressive potential of the simplified tax structure. That isn't such a wild idea, as such a concept was talked about even shortly after the Revolution by Thomas Paine. You could even link that basic income to household size as a means to replace the very popular child tax credit--in fact, that could also help in dealing with multi-generation households with people taking care of aging dependent parents. If done right, such an approach could help eliminate the need for food stamp programs & welfare assistance. A universal basic income system would also remove the disincentive to work resulting from potential loss in welfare benefits due to rising income. This would eliminate large bureaucracies and confusing policies.

flat tax + universal basic income = simple, yet effectively progressive tax system less prone to manipulation
(conservative) (liberal) (overall preference of Americans)

The IRS would become a shadow of itself, as it is largely an animal created by the complex system in place. Audits would be virtually unnecessary as fewer exemptions = fewer loopholes. Tax preparation services would largely disappear. You would actually have a model example of increased government efficiency while also providing a better service.

The biggest challenge is how to deal with capital gains under such a scenario, as well as medicare/medicaid and SS. And, of course, that comprehensive rational legislative reforms are damn near impossible.
 
ColoGI said:
I'm glad he'll be wasting $100M of Koch money that they can't spend somewhere else. Although that much money is couch cushion change to them, but still.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't want the Koch's to use that money to prop up any of the million problems in their home state! Education is underfunded, state budget is crap, water problems, economic development incentive...so much it could do for their state, but who wants educated people in a stable government environment that provides jobs?

On the tax thing, does anyone think the whole tax industry might be to big to fail? That's a lot of jobs going out the window is we no longer need the IRS and tax prep help.
 
Well thank you Obama Care. The out of pocket costs for my son's therapy more than tripled as of 1/1/2015. My wife asked the insurance provider about the change, and they explained that it was because our policy was restructured to conform with the ACA requirement for treatments offered.

On and the out of pocket cost of the insurance it's self went up too.
 
Last edited:
michaelskis said:
Well thank you Obama Care. The out of pocket costs for my son's therapy more than tripled as of 1/1/2015. My wife asked the insurance provider about the change, and they explained that it was because our policy was restructured to conform with the ACA requirement for treatments offered.

On and the out of pocket cost of the insurance it's self went up too.
Click to expand...

Insurance insider... you shouldn't necessarily believe it when your insurance carrier blames ACA. My wife has dealt with this on the coding side of the medical profession. A few bad players are using ACA to justify unrelated changes. Your insurance could be legit, but I'd suggest a skeptical eye.
 
HA HA!!

Suburb Repairman said:
Insurance insider... you shouldn't necessarily believe it when your insurance carrier blames ACA. My wife has dealt with this on the coding side of the medical profession. A few bad players are using ACA to justify unrelated changes. Your insurance could be legit, but I'd suggest a skeptical eye.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the laugh....I needed it this morning.....SNARF:lmao: Suburb Repairman you are a FUNNY:r:
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Insurance insider... you shouldn't necessarily believe it when your insurance carrier blames ACA. My wife has dealt with this on the coding side of the medical profession. A few bad players are using ACA to justify unrelated changes. Your insurance could be legit, but I'd suggest a skeptical eye.
Click to expand...

Not going to fall into the ACA argument, but I could easily see the insurance company blaming everything on ACA. Sorry we're charging you more, it's that damn gubmint (and it might be). It's kind of like the contractor that tells the property owner it's all the city's fault he can't get a permit. It's much easier than explaining the real reasons like hey, we just got screwed out of some of our profits by the gubmint and we're going to make up for it by charging you more on your copay while covering less.

End result, big government and big corporations argue and we get hurt.
 
Addition.....

dvdneal said:
Not going to fall into the ACA argument, but I could easily see the insurance company blaming everything on ACA. Sorry we're charging you more, it's that damn gubmint (and it might be). It's kind of like the contractor that tells the property owner it's all the city's fault he can't get a permit. It's much easier than explaining the real reasons like hey, we just got screwed out of some of our profits by the gubmint and we're going to make up for it by charging you more on your copay while covering less.

End result, big government and big corporations argue and we get hurt, while corporations continue to post massive profits.
Click to expand...

....forgot to finish that sentence.....
 
dvdneal said:
Not going to fall into the ACA argument, but I could easily see the insurance company blaming everything on ACA. Sorry we're charging you more, it's that damn gubmint (and it might be). It's kind of like the contractor that tells the property owner it's all the city's fault he can't get a permit. It's much easier than explaining the real reasons like hey, we just got screwed out of some of our profits by the gubmint and we're going to make up for it by charging you more on your copay while covering less.

End result, big government and big corporations argue and we get hurt.
Click to expand...

A high school friend argued this point with his insurance company. They handed him a list of things that the ACA requires coverage for. One of the things that he's now covered for prenatal care. He is a single guy who because of cancer several years back, can't have kids... ever. But if by the grace of God he gets pregnant, at least he is covered. He said that he sleeps so much better knowing that.

I am sure there are insurance companies out there that are scamming people with ammunition given to them by the Federal Government.
 
Hmmm......

So apparently everyone is ok with a Republican Congress accepting foreign intelligence gathered by Israel from our Diplomats? I'm sure if it was a democratic congress taking classified intelligence from a foreign country as a result of spying on a Republican president administration.....everyone would be fine with that too:r::facepalm::trollface:
 
The One said:
So apparently everyone is ok with a Republican Congress accepting foreign intelligence gathered by Israel from our Diplomats? I'm sure if it was a democratic congress taking classified intelligence from a foreign country as a result of spying on a Republican president administration.....everyone would be fine with that too:r::facepalm::trollface:
Click to expand...

I think it is all a mess and I think that Boehner and the rest of his cronies know a lot more than they are letting on. The weird part about it is the limited number of people who where involved in those talks vs the number of people who know what was discussed.
 
The One said:
So apparently everyone is ok with a Republican Congress accepting foreign intelligence gathered by Israel from our Diplomats? I'm sure if it was a democratic congress taking classified intelligence from a foreign country as a result of spying on a Republican president administration.....everyone would be fine with that too:r::facepalm::trollface:
Click to expand...

The sooner you realize that it's only bad when you do it, but it's fine when I do it, the sooner you will be deemed patriotic and supporting my America
 
The One said:
So apparently everyone is ok with a Republican Congress accepting foreign intelligence gathered by Israel from our Diplomats? I'm sure if it was a democratic congress taking classified intelligence from a foreign country as a result of spying on a Republican president administration.....everyone would be fine with that too:r::facepalm::trollface:
Click to expand...

Soooooo many shiny objects and squirrels running about to distract the populace from blatant plutocratic takeover and parting out of our country.
 
CNN said:
Ten months ago, President Barack Obama hailed the safe return of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to the United States during a rare weekend appearance in the Rose Garden.

"Sgt. Bergdahl has missed birthdays and holidays and the simple moments with family and friends," Obama said, standing alongside Bergdahl's parents. Later, he detailed how he'd swapped five Taliban detainees held at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Bergdahl's return from five years of captivity in Afghanistan.

Bergdahl, charged by the military Wednesday with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, now faces the prospect of never spending another birthday or holiday outside of prison if the maximum penalty of life in prison is applied.
Click to expand...
(LINK)

So let me get this right, Obama exchanged 5 known terrorists for this guy and people still think that he is still awesome at foreign policy and national security. :r:
 
Oh puuhhhlease......

If the Pres. was a crusty old white dude with a (R) behind his name and I just said what you wrote....well, here is what the response would be:

Don't madder..(spits some chew out)....he's a 'MERICAN!! Why do you hate 'merica sooooo much???

You know it! I know it! The American People KNOW IT!

:-x;)
 
The One said:
If the Pres. was a crusty old white dude with a (R) behind his name and I just said what you wrote....well, here is what the response would be:

Don't madder..(spits some chew out)....he's a 'MERICAN!! Why do you hate 'merica sooooo much???

You know it! I know it! The American People KNOW IT!

:-x;)
Click to expand...

Ummm, no. Stupid is stupid regardless of what letter is behind their name. McCain is just as bad as BO.
 
michaelskis said:
(LINK)

So let me get this right, Obama exchanged 5 known terrorists for this guy and people still think that he is still awesome at foreign policy and national security. :r:
Click to expand...

I'll leave most of your statement alone because I know the argument is fruitless. I will say that I think it is very important to bring back every soldier, even if it is simply so you can run them through the military justice system to make an example. Everyone is focused on the hostage exchange aspect of this and ignoring the multiple attempts to rescue him prior, which wasted significant military resources and unnecessarily placed other soldiers in harm's way. You could not definitively say what happened to him regarding desertion until actually getting him back to debrief him--otherwise you're just working with half the story.
 
I hear what you're saying and actually agree with bringing him back to have a trial and find out the truth. But for some reason instead of doing this as quietly as possible there is a big event in the Rose Garden. That was just plain stupid. You make a comment you did it and you let it play out in the hands of military justice. But the President can't ever not say something about everything. So many times during his presidency the right thing to say is "it's a local matter, it's a law enforcement issue". And STFU. But he doesn't.
 
MD Planner said:
I hear what you're saying and actually agree with bringing him back to have a trial and find out the truth. But for some reason instead of doing this as quietly as possible there is a big event in the Rose Garden. That was just plain stupid. You make a comment you did it and you let it play out in the hands of military justice. But the President can't ever not say something about everything. So many times during his presidency the right thing to say is "it's a local matter, it's a law enforcement issue". And STFU. But he doesn't.
Click to expand...

I don't think I fully follow where you are going with your comments.

For me, I think it is proper that he is going to stand trial and I think it is great that we were able to bring him home. I don't think that the media hoopla from the WH was appropriate and I think that the terms of his release (releasing 5 terrorists) will have long term negative consequences in national and global security. The WH used this as a political stunt more than anything else.

Once again, it would be just as bad if someone with an R did this. I think that Ted Cruz and his filibuster last year was nothing more than a political stunt.
 
The One said:
If the Pres. was a crusty old white dude with a (R) behind his name and I just said what you wrote....well, here is what the response would be:

Don't madder..(spits some chew out)....he's a 'MERICAN!! Why do you hate 'merica sooooo much???

You know it! I know it! The American People KNOW IT!

:-x;)
Click to expand...

Do we have a spitting tobacco emoji? Maybe with a little cowboy hat?

MD Planner said:
I hear what you're saying and actually agree with bringing him back to have a trial and find out the truth. But for some reason instead of doing this as quietly as possible there is a big event in the Rose Garden. That was just plain stupid. You make a comment you did it and you let it play out in the hands of military justice. But the President can't ever not say something about everything. So many times during his presidency the right thing to say is "it's a local matter, it's a law enforcement issue". And STFU. But he doesn't.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with the Pres getting to much into local crap. The Trevon Martin thing and more. Granted the country needs to have a discussion about race and end some of this racist BS, but I'm not sure the Pres is the right person to do that (regardless of who is in office - needs to be more grass roots), but that's a whole different topic. I do believe you have to bring our soldiers home, but I'm not big on trading prisoners. There's just too much in this story that needs to be questioned. Like why he didn't try to escape on his own, why he deserted, and then we can get into if the prisoners we gave up were low risk or not. I think I'll just ignore that bit of shiny stuff and let the military figure it out.
 
dvdneal said:
Granted the country needs to have a discussion about race and end some of this racist BS, but I'm not sure the Pres is the right person to do that (regardless of who is in office - needs to be more grass roots), but that's a whole different topic.
Click to expand...

In my opinion a discussion about race is impossible. Especially if you're a white male. Not gonna happen. It's the new third rail of politics: touch it and you die. All it takes is one person disagreeing about something you say and you're labeled a racist and that's that. Happens all the time. I'm now 45 years old. I can honestly say that I truly believe race relations are worse now than when I was growing up.
 
I am just wondering if any of you had to pay into the government instead of getting a return thanks to Obamacare? Sounds like more than half of those who received some level of subsidy have to pay part if not all of it back to the government. CNN Money Link.

I am not sure about the details, but my dad needs to pay in around $2,000 this year because of Obamacare. I am not sure all the details, but he normally gets around $800 back every year. He makes around average for the area that he lives in, which is way below the national average. Needless to say he is not pleased because to him, $2000 is serious money.


So, lets go over this again... exactly how is the "Affordable Care Act" affordable for the middle class?
 
Ahh?

michaelskis said:
I am just wondering if any of you had to pay into the government instead of getting a return thanks to Obamacare? Sounds like more than half of those who received some level of subsidy have to pay part if not all of it back to the government. CNN Money Link.

I am not sure about the details, but my dad needs to pay in around $2,000 this year because of Obamacare. I am not sure all the details, but he normally gets around $800 back every year. He makes around average for the area that he lives in, which is way below the national average. Needless to say he is not pleased because to him, $2000 is serious money.


So, lets go over this again... exactly how is the "Affordable Care Act" affordable for the middle class?
Click to expand...

That is strange....using this calculator:
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/acacalculator.cfm

I had to show a gross income of $221,000 married filing jointly to get to a $2,000 penalty......
Now if I were bringing in $200k gross......$2k isn't a big deal in the big picture. Notice how the bronze insurance (sucks) is almost $2.5k a year at this level.
Of course this all assumes you have NO other health insurance coverage through work or private.

Single went up to $2,100 or so.....
 
Last edited:
The One said:
That is strange....using this calculator:
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/acacalculator.cfm

I had to show a gross income of $221,000 married filing jointly to get to a $2,000 penalty......
Now if I were bringing in $200k gross......$2k isn't a big deal in the big picture. Notice how the bronze insurance (sucks) is almost $2.5k a year at this level.
Of course this all assumes you have NO other health insurance coverage through work or private.

Single went up to $2,100 or so.....
Click to expand...

He didn't bring in $200k. Part of it was because of a transfer for a retirement fund. He was part owner of the company he worked for and all that stock was his retirement fund. Well the majority owners decided to sell and it resulted in his "income" being high however all of it then was rolled over to a Roth IRA. With a Roth, he has to pay the taxes now and the money comes out tax free later.

Based on the CNN Money article, he isn't the only one that had this happen.

The One said:
Just a reminder:

Here is the study that backs up what everyone seems to know and only about 0.1% want to keep you from believing:

The USA is now an Oligarchy:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310
Click to expand...

I did not read the entire journal since I didn't have an additional $30 for someone to say something that I already realize. However I think it raises a good point regarding our elected politicians. Namely, both the R's and D's have had points in time where they have had total control and not much has changed. I have said it before and I will say it again, it does not matter which party they run under, it is all about the money. Both sides increase the size and power of government and both sides do what they need to do to protect their hold on the American people. They are not going to jeopardize their incomes by doing the right thing if doing the right thing will result in a loss of campaign funds, kickbacks, and post-political employment options.
 
Turns out the Republican Christian Right might not have made winning 2016 easy for any republicans with the microscope on some of these discriminatory laws being proposed under the guise of religious freedom.

I am glad to see that companies are doing what they have a right to do, which is to not do business in State's that enact such laws. State's have the right to discriminate (I guess), but Companies have a right to get the hell out.

Good for Tim Cook, Marc Benioff, and other like them that are willing to put what is right over what makes more money for the company. Just ask Starbucks CEO who is constantly trying to make his company become a social advocate, even when they go over the top.

Tim Cook Op-Ed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...66d-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html?hpid=z6
 
If I was an Indiana native and/or resident, I'd be ashamed.

I hope the businesses that execrise this 'right' lose all their business and fail (and I genuinely feel bad for employees that work for such 'bosses').

Or is this just a stupid 'right' to allow religious-based 'businesses' (ie churches and church based schools) the right to treat there employees like crap?

That is all.
 
It's all clearly unconstitutional, but the law has to be challenged first which means someone has to be hurt by it.

It's clear the 1st amendment for free religion is running over all the other amendments except the 2nd amendment that has clearly threatened to shoot all the other amendments if they think about infringing on it. I always though the amendments were equal. Why can't the 14th amendment become a little more popular and start fighting back?
 
mendelman said:
If I was an Indiana native and/or resident, I'd be ashamed.

I hope the businesses that execrise this 'right' lose all their business and fail (and I genuinely feel bad for employees that work for such 'bosses').

Or is this just a stupid 'right' to allow religious-based 'businesses' (ie churches and church based schools) the right to treat there employees like crap?

That is all.
Click to expand...

The part that I can't get over is in 99.9% of these cases, providing service to someone would not actually violate a person's religious beliefs. For example I am pro-life, but I have reviewed and recommend approval of facility that performs abortions. While I am opposed to the actions that take place in that facility, my review and recommendation is based on does the request meet the standards as written in the Zoning Ordinance and not my religious beliefs. Refusing to do the job that I get paid to do is not the proper venue to voice my opposition unless my actions directly impacted the end result of the activity,

Another example is wedding photographers. They take pictures of the event, they don't officiate it. Their actions do not strengthen or weaken the event, only record it.
 
michaelskis said:
The part that I can't get over is in 99.9% of these cases, providing service to someone would not actually violate a person's religious beliefs. For example I am pro-life, but I have reviewed and recommend approval of facility that performs abortions. While I am opposed to the actions that take place in that facility, my review and recommendation is based on does the request meet the standards as written in the Zoning Ordinance and not my religious beliefs. Refusing to do the job that I get paid to do is not the proper venue to voice my opposition unless my actions directly impacted the end result of the activity,

Another example is wedding photographers. They take pictures of the event, they don't officiate it. Their actions do not strengthen or weaken the event, only record it.
Click to expand...
Exactly, mskis. It's just a stupid smoke screen of pander.
 
If your religious beliefs are shaken by a gay marriage (or something else, but I think they're talking about marriage), then maybe viewing, issuing a license to, renting an apartment to, etc. a gay person is not the problem.
 
YUP!!!

http://robertreich.org/post/115067624170

"The new work requirements haven’t reduced the number or percentage of Americans in poverty. They’ve just moved poor people from being unemployed and impoverished to being employed and impoverished."

and

"Six of today’s ten wealthiest Americans are heirs to prominent fortunes. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans combined."

"The top tax rate paid by America’s wealthy on their capital gains — the major source of income for the non-working rich – has dropped from 33 percent in the late 1980s to 20 percent today, putting it substantially below the top tax rate on ordinary income (36.9 percent)."

Lower tax rate than me for sitting on massive piles of money and doing nothing with it.....sounds lazy to me:-@

Drops Mic!!!
 
The One said:
http://robertreich.org/post/115067624170

"The new work requirements haven’t reduced the number or percentage of Americans in poverty. They’ve just moved poor people from being unemployed and impoverished to being employed and impoverished."

and

"Six of today’s ten wealthiest Americans are heirs to prominent fortunes. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans combined."

"The top tax rate paid by America’s wealthy on their capital gains — the major source of income for the non-working rich – has dropped from 33 percent in the late 1980s to 20 percent today, putting it substantially below the top tax rate on ordinary income (36.9 percent)."

Lower tax rate than me for sitting on massive piles of money and doing nothing with it.....sounds lazy to me:-@

Drops Mic!!!
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you just said... but the change will never happen because it is those people who contribute, and convince their wealthy friends to contribute to campaigns for people on both sides of the aisle.

I will go back to the pipe dream of total restructuring. Zero deductions for all, all income is treated the same, graduated scale starting at 150%.
 
The One said:
Lower tax rate than me for sitting on massive piles of money and doing nothing with it.....sounds lazy to me:-@
Click to expand...

Serious question: So even though that money has been taxed once (most likely when it was earned), possibly twice (when it was inherited), you still think that it should be taxed a third time (capital gains) because the pile of money is too big? I can't argue with the possible lazy people who get the money, but someone earned it at some point.

My problem is not so much with the closing of loopholes, or the increase in equitable tax relief, but the idea that just because someone has money that we should take it. That money should be taxed once. The idea that someone made money, and saved it, and gave it to their kids (at any level of income) should be something good, not something penalized.

If that person would have bought a boat, or a mansion, they wouldn't have been penalized the same. I just think that is pretty ridiculous when looked at in context.
 
The symbol for the Democratic Party is a jackass.

But for a truly representative symbol, I think the Republican Party Elephant should be depicted from the back end, because the leaders seem so dedicated to being great big a$$holes. :D:D
 
Fair question.....

Hink said:
Serious question: So even though that money has been taxed once (most likely when it was earned), possibly twice (when it was inherited), you still think that it should be taxed a third time (capital gains) because the pile of money is too big? I can't argue with the possible lazy people who get the money, but someone earned it at some point.

My problem is not so much with the closing of loopholes, or the increase in equitable tax relief, but the idea that just because someone has money that we should take it. That money should be taxed once. The idea that someone made money, and saved it, and gave it to their kids (at any level of income) should be something good, not something penalized.

If that person would have bought a boat, or a mansion, they wouldn't have been penalized the same. I just think that is pretty ridiculous when looked at in context.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! and TAX THE LIVING HELL OUT OF THAT MONEY! ;) Money getting taxed at a lower rate when it is being used or in transition is ok....as long as it is getting used....aka distributed into and through the economy.

HOARDING capital and transferring capital to others that would hoard it should be an invitation for higher taxes. An incentive to not pocket 30% of the nations wealth.

1. Hoarding wealth hurts the economy....that has been proven. Less money being spent or passed through the system diminishes the entire economy.
2. Trickle Down economics doesn't work....has never worked and will never work.
3. Hoarders are NOT patriotic. Just look at all the ways they try to divorce their money from the United States.
4. There is a defined point after which money being "saved" is money being hoarded. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and many other Billionaires have pointed this out in the last 15 years. They only continue to hoard because we allow it through relaxed tax policy (aka proper incentive to reinvest the money in something other then themselves).
5. Please don't pretend that we are talking about ANYONE other than about the top one half of one%.....they after all, have HOARDED about 30% of the nations wealth. The other 99.5% can continue hoarding if they choose to do so.
 
NC Legislature has decided to drop the gas tax 1.5 cents. That fund helps pay for road maintenance and improvements, which has a funding backlog for projects of about 72 years. So of course it makes sense to reduce the funding mechanism. Idiots!

Well at least they have decided to delay discussion of their own version of the "Religious Freedom Discrimination Bigot Act" to see how it plays out in Indiana & Arkansas.
 
Our state is considering letting voters decide if counties should eliminate property tax and just run on sales tax. It would be a county by county decision.

Still working on discrimination. Latest round, religious clubs at universities shouldn't be required to let "those" people in based on their firm religious beliefs. So how the hell do you convince "those" people to change their life style (because it's a choice) if you don't bring them into the fold?:r:
 
Hink said:
Serious question: So even though that money has been taxed once (most likely when it was earned), possibly twice (when it was inherited), you still think that it should be taxed a third time (capital gains) because the pile of money is too big? I can't argue with the possible lazy people who get the money, but someone earned it at some point.

My problem is not so much with the closing of loopholes, or the increase in equitable tax relief, but the idea that just because someone has money that we should take it. That money should be taxed once. The idea that someone made money, and saved it, and gave it to their kids (at any level of income) should be something good, not something penalized.

If that person would have bought a boat, or a mansion, they wouldn't have been penalized the same. I just think that is pretty ridiculous when looked at in context.
Click to expand...

Oh and quotes from Robert Reich this week:
"Congressional Republicans’ decision last week to eliminate the estate tax, which hits only the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans, is an example of their complete disdain for public morality – what we owe one another as members of the same society. Conservative Republicans have no problem with some Americans imposing their private religious views on other Americans. They just don’t want to impose any public responsibilities on super-wealthy Americans. Once again, they’ve got public and private morality backwards."

and;

"Last month, under mounting pressure, Walmart announced it would raise wages to $9 an hour in April and to $10 an hour by 2016. A study just out from Americans for Tax Fairness estimates that even this increase still requires taxpayers subsidize Walmart’s low wages with $6.2 billion a year in food stamps, housing assistance, and other aid, to keep Walmart workers and their families out of poverty. In other words, you and I and every other taxpayer will continue to shell out $6.2 billion a year because Walmart – America's largest employer, whose Walton owners and heirs have more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans put together – still won’t pay its employees a livable wage."

The top 1/10th of 1% would benefit from that estate tax break......and a subsidy for a company that has more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans!

DROPS MIC.....AGAIN.....
 
Back
Top