US: Does your personal view incline towards raising or lowering your taxes?

[NoStateofMind]

I am in favor of raising taxes with one exception. They decrease spending by 50% in 10yrs. Otherwise the notion of increasing taxes for paying off the debt will be of non-effect. Politicians will see more tax revenue as more money to spend rather than reducing our national debt.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: TheBDB
I'm for raising taxes until there is no deficit. Or cut spending. Or both.

I am shocked each and every time I see someone in favor of taxes. What if the government just said oohhh in order to reduce the deficit taxes are now 65% of your income. Still agree?

How can people want a bigger government?!

It depends on what I get for my money. If in exchange for higher taxes I get something that is worth it, what is wrong with that? Of course I am skeptical that I will ever get my monies worth.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: chucky2
I would favor the Gov. locking in at their current spending dollars for the next x years, and raising taxes on say anyone 26-38 up 5% or something like that.

Chuck

So are you below 26 or above 38? 😛

I just turned 30 a few days ago, and had you asked me this when I was 26, I'd have signed up for it then to. Even with the house I'll be buying in the spring, I'd still sign on.

No one in my generation, the generation before me, or the generation under me has sacrificed sh1t for this country - save for the folks that went and signed themselves up in the Services.

I don't mind sacrificing, but I want to be assured mainly that The Gov. is absolutely put in check, and that money that I'm sacrificing is going directly towards what the additional tax was created for.

Chuck

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Decrease, which is why I'm voting Obama. I make less than $250,000/year, and my taxes will be lower under his tax plan.

Hm, the whole Supreme Court, corruption, sellout to the corporatocracy, good of the nation, help the poor, war stuff isn't determining your vote, eh?

I doubt he is voting for Bob Barr (and even he sucks).

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: mizzou
other countries seem to do pretty damn well with high taxes.

free school, free health insurance, in some cases, free jobs.

being taxed at a higher amount though and seeing NO return would IMO be stupid as hell and I would never support it.

But I would support an increase to help get this tuition mess under control

Are you kidding me?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: TheBDB
I'm for raising taxes until there is no deficit. Or cut spending. Or both.

Ding! This is the way I feel as well. Although I do not feel that our taxes are being used responsibly at the moment, I do believe that it is in our best interest that we not operate under a deficit, especially when we aren't in an official state of war.

But the question is *how much* are YOU willing to pay? 30%? (I know you probably dont pay fed that much now). 40%? 50%? 80%?

The more I take home the more I invest and the more I spend. The government works like American families do. When people get a raise at work-whether its 3% or 10%- they dont save that-they increase their spending. The true is most here too I bet. Im proud to say every raise Ive gotten in the last 6 years Ive increased my savings by the same amount. But then, I live on cash and live on less than I make, sooo. Raiseing taxes alone is not the answer. Cutting programs and spending is.

It is a good question, but my opinion still stands. Raising taxes alone will not work as I do believe our current taxes are being used irresponsibly. It has to be a combination of better accountability, reduced spending, and (somewhat) higher taxes, at least in the short term. This level of debt we have now is inexcusable.

Yes. But, how to do it? I hate to say it, but if the Congres would actually quit their fucking bickering and AGREE to reduce the budget, it would get done. You know, I dont believe even 50 of our current congress would vote for that. Afterall, we havent had a reduction in our fed budget, adjusted for inflation, since 1934 and it aint gonna happen now. So what to do?

WAKE THE FUCK UP and VOTE them out of office! People think congress is corrupt and owned by corporations. That isnt true. WE let them. They are OUR employees, and we reFUSE to fire them. WE must hold them accountable, not some fucking board of oversight. Most of this fucking country doesnt even vote for Christ's sake.

/rant off

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: chucky2
I would favor the Gov. locking in at their current spending dollars for the next x years, and raising taxes on say anyone 26-38 up 5% or something like that.

Chuck

So are you below 26 or above 38? 😛

I just turned 30 a few days ago, and had you asked me this when I was 26, I'd have signed up for it then to. Even with the house I'll be buying in the spring, I'd still sign on.

No one in my generation, the generation before me, or the generation under me has sacrificed sh1t for this country - save for the folks that went and signed themselves up in the Services.

I don't mind sacrificing, but I want to be assured mainly that The Gov. is absolutely put in check, and that money that I'm sacrificing is going directly towards what the additional tax was created for.

Chuck

Then start telling people to fucking VOTE. THAT is something YOU can do.

 

[chucky2]

Thank you, Yes, I will (and have in the past) vote. Voting isn't the problem.

The problem is that it takes rediculous sums of money to run in an election, which almost no one has. You either have to be rich already, or, whore yourself out.

Worse, the truly quality people we need in Congress and the Executive just aren't going to put themselves through that BS when they could stay in private enterprise, make sh1tloads more money, and not have to put up with the BS that is Washington.

Here's our choices each election:

A bought and paid for corrupt Democrat, or, a bought and paid for corrupt Republican, or, a wacked out Green party candidate. Each promising everything to everybody, able to deliver on nothing (all the while knowing it, which makes them in effect liars).

Now, when I go vote, which bought and paid for corrupt liar should I vote for?

You see our dilemma...

Chuck

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Thank you, Yes, I will (and have in the past) vote. Voting isn't the problem.

The problem is that it takes rediculous sums of money to run in an election, which almost no one has. You either have to be rich already, or, whore yourself out.

But is does NOT take huge sums of money. Just because huge amounts ARE spent doesnt mean its REQUIRED. Again, I lay blame on the citizens. If they were to ignore the stump speeches and ads (which are worthless) we would have an honest election. And an honest election has NOTHING to do with candidates and EVERYTHING to with voters.

Originally posted by: chucky2
Worse, the truly quality people we need in Congress and the Executive just aren't going to put themselves through that BS when they could stay in private enterprise, make sh1tloads more money, and not have to put up with the BS that is Washington.

If the voters demanded it, they would run. End of story.

Originally posted by: chucky2
Here's our choices each election:

A bought and paid for corrupt Democrat, or, a bought and paid for corrupt Republican, or, a wacked out Green party candidate. Each promising everything to everybody, able to deliver on nothing (all the while knowing it, which makes them in effect liars).

Now, when I go vote, which bought and paid for corrupt liar should I vote for?

You see our dilemma...

Chuck

If they ARE bought and paid for its because voters are apathetic. If they werent in DC they wouldnt be bought and paid for right? So who put em there? After 3 or 4 elections of voters not renewing employment for politicians because they were shown to have accepted solicitations from PACS or whatever, believe me they'll get the message. Special interest groups arent looking for a one-trick pony, rather someone embedded in DC. If voters dont give it to them, they'll back off. Supply and demand.

 

[quest55720]

Keep taxes low this government has a spending problem. They take in more than enough money right now. It is time to start cutting spending from all areas including the military. It still amazes me people want this corrupt government in charge of things like health care when they can't get any program right. Both parties are corrupt and evil as far as I am concerned.

 

[TheVrolok]

It's already been covered in this thread. Taxes are not the primary concern, it's cutting out the deficit spending.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Chucky2-

A bought and paid for corrupt Democrat, or, a bought and paid for corrupt Republican, or, a wacked out Green party candidate.

Interesting attributions, to say the least. I'll agree with the second, for the most part, wrt repubs. They're philosophically and ideologically predisposed, and their track record proves it. McCain's campaign staff roster proves it, too.

Greens? no argument.

Dems? I think we have to see things from a perspective other than black and white, meaning that if something or somebody isn't lily-white, that doesn't mean they're black. Dems traditionally strike a better balance between all the different interests, largely working with shades of grey. That's reality, that's pragmatism, that's the give and take politics traditionally involved prior to the ascendancy of the "with us or against us" headset of current repub leadership.

I have to say that the current whine about how all politicians are the same is just more of the usual rightwing appeal to emotion, at least as applied to the current election cycle- "They're all the same, so just vote for the old white guy. follow your gut, your ingrained cultural bias, don't vote for the other (black) guy, because you can't trust him."

Desperate, for sure, but apparently effective when dealing with shallow thinkers. Half the electorate has below average intelligence, after all...

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chucky2
Thank you, Yes, I will (and have in the past) vote. Voting isn't the problem.

The problem is that it takes rediculous sums of money to run in an election, which almost no one has. You either have to be rich already, or, whore yourself out.

But is does NOT take huge sums of money. Just because huge amounts ARE spent doesnt mean its REQUIRED. Again, I lay blame on the citizens. If they were to ignore the stump speeches and ads (which are worthless) we would have an honest election. And an honest election has NOTHING to do with candidates and EVERYTHING to with voters.

To run for POTUS? Get real. It takes a whole h3ll of a lot of money to do that...something someone is not going to have just laying around without either a.) having it themselves, b.) getting backing from some rich b@stards who want a return on their investment (see: bought and paid for), c.) a huge groundswell of public support. How to get c.? See a. or b.

I totally agree with ignoring stump speeches and the scripted BS. When I want political news, I turn on C-SPAN, either what's on or DVR'd. Even then, it's a crap shoot on whether you're hearing something near the truth, or, another twisted lie.

Originally posted by: chucky2
Worse, the truly quality people we need in Congress and the Executive just aren't going to put themselves through that BS when they could stay in private enterprise, make sh1tloads more money, and not have to put up with the BS that is Washington.

If the voters demanded it, they would run. End of story.

In theory, Yes. In reality, no one cares about election time until election time, and by then, it's too late. Even if they did demand it, why would a good CEO or CIO or someone of high caliber stop what they're doing, while they're at the top and can call shots that happen, take a huge pay cut, and then be a whore to the people that bought him/her in b.? Or have to bargain with corrupt F'ers on wrong solutions, when before they issued an order, and it was done? Why sign up for the pain?

Originally posted by: chucky2
Here's our choices each election:

A bought and paid for corrupt Democrat, or, a bought and paid for corrupt Republican, or, a wacked out Green party candidate. Each promising everything to everybody, able to deliver on nothing (all the while knowing it, which makes them in effect liars).

Now, when I go vote, which bought and paid for corrupt liar should I vote for?

You see our dilemma...

Chuck

If they ARE bought and paid for its because voters are apathetic. If they werent in DC they wouldnt be bought and paid for right? So who put em there? After 3 or 4 elections of voters not renewing employment for politicians because they were shown to have accepted solicitations from PACS or whatever, believe me they'll get the message. Special interest groups arent looking for a one-trick pony, rather someone embedded in DC. If voters dont give it to them, they'll back off. Supply and demand.

Yes, the voters are apathetic. Tell you what, I'll vote for the good 4th party candidate, the one you and I want on the ballot. The one who isn't owned, isn't a carreer politician, and just wants to fix what they can, and then get the F out of DC.

Now, which candidate on our ballot is that?

Here's a hint: He/She isn't there.

So now, who do I vote for?

Hope and Change?
Save the Trees?
McCain?

My lesser of those 3 evils is McCain, and hope to h3ll he returns to the McCain of <= 2000, and hope he's been doing what he's been doing as it's a must to get elected this time, but he'll revert to his old self. The country F'd up in 2000, we absolutely should have elected him then. Instead we got another F'ing guy that can't manage his managers.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Chucky2-

A bought and paid for corrupt Democrat, or, a bought and paid for corrupt Republican, or, a wacked out Green party candidate.

Interesting attributions, to say the least. I'll agree with the second, for the most part, wrt repubs. They're philosophically and ideologically predisposed, and their track record proves it. McCain's campaign staff roster proves it, too.

Greens? no argument.

Dems? I think we have to see things from a perspective other than black and white, meaning that if something or somebody isn't lily-white, that doesn't mean they're black. Dems traditionally strike a better balance between all the different interests, largely working with shades of grey. That's reality, that's pragmatism, that's the give and take politics traditionally involved prior to the ascendancy of the "with us or against us" headset of current repub leadership.

I have to say that the current whine about how all politicians are the same is just more of the usual rightwing appeal to emotion, at least as applied to the current election cycle- "They're all the same, so just vote for the old white guy. follow your gut, your ingrained cultural bias, don't vote for the other (black) guy, because you can't trust him."

Desperate, for sure, but apparently effective when dealing with shallow thinkers. Half the electorate has below average intelligence, after all...

Your balanced Dem's have done absolutely sh1t, pure and simple. Even when they didn't have the majority, they still voted on Iraq right along with your hated Republicans.

My preference would be to machine gun the whole of Washington, and start over with that message sent. Unfortunately, that's not possible. So, what will happen is the corruption and incomptenance will continue to happen until our country is truly well into the sh1tter and F'd. Then we'll have a Revolution (I'm not talking RP bot here) and start over. Maybe we'll come out good, maybe we won't....who knows.

If you in any way think Hope and Change and the Dem's are going to in any way "fix" what's happend the past 8 years, or, do something better, you are seriously so far gone as to not even need to debate with. Bush inherited Clintons mess, and the next POTUS will inherit Bush's...and so on down the line. Get used to it, it's just the way it is...

Chuck

 

[MagicConch]

Spending in Congress won't change until people change their personal habits re: spending and acquiring personal debt as well. The greatest proof we live in a representative democracy is exactly their amazing fiscal incompetence.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's right, chucky2- label and dismiss. Just put it all out of your mind, savor the seething anger, take comfort in the idea that you're oh so right. Tune in to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly- somebody you can trust, right?

And, of course, vote for the old white guy whose campaign staff is made up of the very lobbyists you purport to despise. Yeh, he'll be different... except that he's already different- a changeling, a chimera, a fraud... in ways you can't begin to fathom, in ways that should tell us he's really part of the problem, not of the solution...Your point of view epitomizes the denial of the Bush Faithful, the delusional Right, people whose balls do most of their thinking... just one problem- there are no brain cells in that part of the human anatomy....

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chucky2
Thank you, Yes, I will (and have in the past) vote. Voting isn't the problem.

The problem is that it takes rediculous sums of money to run in an election, which almost no one has. You either have to be rich already, or, whore yourself out.

But is does NOT take huge sums of money. Just because huge amounts ARE spent doesnt mean its REQUIRED. Again, I lay blame on the citizens. If they were to ignore the stump speeches and ads (which are worthless) we would have an honest election. And an honest election has NOTHING to do with candidates and EVERYTHING to with voters.

To run for POTUS? Get real. It takes a whole h3ll of a lot of money to do that...something someone is not going to have just laying around without either a.) having it themselves, b.) getting backing from some rich b@stards who want a return on their investment (see: bought and paid for), c.) a huge groundswell of public support. How to get c.? See a. or b.

I totally agree with ignoring stump speeches and the scripted BS. When I want political news, I turn on C-SPAN, either what's on or DVR'd. Even then, it's a crap shoot on whether you're hearing something near the truth, or, another twisted lie.

Originally posted by: chucky2
Worse, the truly quality people we need in Congress and the Executive just aren't going to put themselves through that BS when they could stay in private enterprise, make sh1tloads more money, and not have to put up with the BS that is Washington.

If the voters demanded it, they would run. End of story.

In theory, Yes. In reality, no one cares about election time until election time, and by then, it's too late. Even if they did demand it, why would a good CEO or CIO or someone of high caliber stop what they're doing, while they're at the top and can call shots that happen, take a huge pay cut, and then be a whore to the people that bought him/her in b.? Or have to bargain with corrupt F'ers on wrong solutions, when before they issued an order, and it was done? Why sign up for the pain?

Originally posted by: chucky2
Here's our choices each election:

A bought and paid for corrupt Democrat, or, a bought and paid for corrupt Republican, or, a wacked out Green party candidate. Each promising everything to everybody, able to deliver on nothing (all the while knowing it, which makes them in effect liars).

Now, when I go vote, which bought and paid for corrupt liar should I vote for?

You see our dilemma...

Chuck

If they ARE bought and paid for its because voters are apathetic. If they werent in DC they wouldnt be bought and paid for right? So who put em there? After 3 or 4 elections of voters not renewing employment for politicians because they were shown to have accepted solicitations from PACS or whatever, believe me they'll get the message. Special interest groups arent looking for a one-trick pony, rather someone embedded in DC. If voters dont give it to them, they'll back off. Supply and demand.

Yes, the voters are apathetic. Tell you what, I'll vote for the good 4th party candidate, the one you and I want on the ballot. The one who isn't owned, isn't a carreer politician, and just wants to fix what they can, and then get the F out of DC.

Now, which candidate on our ballot is that?

Here's a hint: He/She isn't there.

So now, who do I vote for?

Hope and Change?
Save the Trees?
McCain?

My lesser of those 3 evils is McCain, and hope to h3ll he returns to the McCain of <= 2000, and hope he's been doing what he's been doing as it's a must to get elected this time, but he'll revert to his old self. The country F'd up in 2000, we absolutely should have elected him then. Instead we got another F'ing guy that can't manage his managers.

Chuck

OK. My only question is...why vote in prez elections anyway? Are you an elector?

As to your comment of why someone would "sign up for the pain"...there are those who believe they CAN make a difference, and who believe in sacrifice for the country.

 

[erub]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: chucky2
I would favor the Gov. locking in at their current spending dollars for the next x years, and raising taxes on say anyone 26-38 up 5% or something like that.

Chuck

So are you below 26 or above 38? 😛

I just turned 30 a few days ago, and had you asked me this when I was 26, I'd have signed up for it then to. Even with the house I'll be buying in the spring, I'd still sign on.

No one in my generation, the generation before me, or the generation under me has sacrificed sh1t for this country - save for the folks that went and signed themselves up in the Services.

I don't mind sacrificing, but I want to be assured mainly that The Gov. is absolutely put in check, and that money that I'm sacrificing is going directly towards what the additional tax was created for.

Chuck

I blame the baby boomers (my father included--and he agrees) for this crap that we are in. They are the greediest generation ever. Spend spend spend, no tax raise to support. Most of them dodged/didn't get drafted to go to Vietnam..and think about the protests! Bunch of whiners.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
That's right, chucky2- label and dismiss. Just put it all out of your mind, savor the seething anger, take comfort in the idea that you're oh so right. Tune in to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly- somebody you can trust, right?

And, of course, vote for the old white guy whose campaign staff is made up of the very lobbyists you purport to despise. Yeh, he'll be different... except that he's already different- a changeling, a chimera, a fraud... in ways you can't begin to fathom, in ways that should tell us he's really part of the problem, not of the solution...Your point of view epitomizes the denial of the Bush Faithful, the delusional Right, people whose balls do most of their thinking... just one problem- there are no brain cells in that part of the human anatomy....

Good job on the partisan delusions, they serve you well I'm sure. Here's some information that would have been helpful before you wrote the partisan hack drivel you posted above:

1.) I'm not a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor a Greenie. I'm more Dem. on social issues, and Libertarian on foreign issues. The problem is that I can't vote Dem., because the candidate is a F'ing inexperienced baby. With McCain/Palin, at least Palin has managed something more than a local rigged Chicago deal, and can hopefully learn from a guy that's been there, done that. With Obama/Biden, we're to have the VP leading the POTUS? Which recent POTUS/VP combo have we had recently where that didn't work out too well???

2.) I don't care how old or what color the POTUS is, just that they're real in their conversation, and are competant at managing issues and the managers that will be managing the solutions to those issues...

Not that I care, but, old white guys have I'm sure learned more than a few life lessons along the way...I wouldn't discount old white guys as being viable candidates. I'll take an old white guy over a young inexperienced anything, every time.

We're back to my sh1tty election choices again, and you being so partisan Obama could give a Hope and Change speech where he promised your mother would die if he were elected, and you'd still be cheering for it.

Face facts: The Whole of DC is corrupt, and bought and paid for - this includes your beloved Dem's. What very very very few people there that aren't, would be a worthy sacrifice for the greater good if we could just permanently get rid of them all.

Chuck

 

[Genx87]

Taxation for my bracket doesnt matter when looking at the bigger picture. I want to know if the overall scheme will be better for the middle class or not. Right now I am skeptical of both plans.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

OK. My only question is...why vote in prez elections anyway? Are you an elector?

As to your comment of why someone would "sign up for the pain"...there are those who believe they CAN make a difference, and who believe in sacrifice for the country.

In the end, and this I'm sure will sound very corny to the hack's around here, but, there are many many people that died to ensure our country has been able to remain (for the most part) the same as the ideals that it was founded upon. I view it as a slap in the face to those people to not go vote. You can write in someone if you can't stomach the options on the ballot. Personally, I think options of No Preference and No Confidence should be added...that way if you don't like any of them, you can vote you either don't care, or, have no confidence in any of them. At the least, we'd have some better statistics.

I'm sure many do believe they can make a difference, and who do believe in sacrifice...but the sickness that is DC is going to prevent the numbers of people we need to even consider running...not to mention that pesky money factor. We need many Representatives, Senators, and Executive candidates who are these type of people. We really need them in the Congress before even attempting to get one or two for POTUS, but until the country gets so bad these people run be damned, and the country gets cynical enough to start seeing through the BS, we're not going to get these options we need.

One Senator that makes it into DC and then is either stonewalled in his/her efforts, and/or becomes corrupt themself...that doesn't help anything.

Chuck

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: blackangst1

OK. My only question is...why vote in prez elections anyway? Are you an elector?

As to your comment of why someone would "sign up for the pain"...there are those who believe they CAN make a difference, and who believe in sacrifice for the country.

In the end, and this I'm sure will sound very corny to the hack's around here, but, there are many many people that died to ensure our country has been able to remain (for the most part) the same as the ideals that it was founded upon. I view it as a slap in the face to those people to not go vote. You can write in someone if you can't stomach the options on the ballot. Personally, I think options of No Preference and No Confidence should be added...that way if you don't like any of them, you can vote you either don't care, or, have no confidence in any of them. At the least, we'd have some better statistics.

I'm sure many do believe they can make a difference, and who do believe in sacrifice...but the sickness that is DC is going to prevent the numbers of people we need to even consider running...not to mention that pesky money factor. We need many Representatives, Senators, and Executive candidates who are these type of people. We really need them in the Congress before even attempting to get one or two for POTUS, but until the country gets so bad these people run be damned, and the country gets cynical enough to start seeing through the BS, we're not going to get these options we need.

One Senator that makes it into DC and then is either stonewalled in his/her efforts, and/or becomes corrupt themself...that doesn't help anything.

Chuck

I agree with the exception of POTUS. 535 elect him/her, no more. and youre vote does not count. You know this.

 

[chucky2]

I know...but, do those 535 ever really stray from the popular vote they represent?

I'm asking...I don't know myself. Say if 55% of the people in IL want Obama, will they vote Obama even if they were Rep.? I'd think they should, right?

Chuck

 

[351Cleveland]

Decrease taxes. The thinking that government can ever spend tax money properly is flawed. Also, decrease the size of government until the debt is under control. The people didnt f'ck it up with the debt, it was the government. Cut their spending for a change instead of mine.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I know...but, do those 535 ever really stray from the popular vote they represent?

I'm asking...I don't know myself. Say if 55% of the people in IL want Obama, will they vote Obama even if they were Rep.? I'd think they should, right?

Chuck

Yes they do. 2000 is an example. District by district is happens also. but the fact that the possibility is there doesnt mean they will. Theres no rule that says they must vote as their constituents do. The bottom line? Youre vote does not affect electing the POTUS.