I think we have to admit that McCain does bare some resemblance to Smeagol.
I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing. I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once. No compromise, every vote they make must include everything they think has to be done for the next 20 years of government. I think the problem is if we do it their way the whole economy is going to come crashing down. People compl
I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once. No compromise
A friend of mine has a nice analogy about compromise.
"Let me stick my dick in your mouth"
"Come on. Let me."
"You should compromise with me. How about just the tip? Can I stick just the tip of my dick in your mouth?"
The point being that when the opposition wants something unacceptable, its always going to be unacceptable. It doesnt magically become acceptable just because its only the tip of his dick.
Except, in this case, your analogy fails almost 100%. This isn't a case of someone trying to do some sexual assault on you or something. We're trying to balance the books. That's done in two ways, lower expenses and increase revenue. Revenue has not been keeping pace with expenses due to tax cuts, a large number of baby boomers retiring, and the rapid increase in medical costs. Tack on the enormous recession which caused a further drop in tax receipts and the enormous hole we were already in and you can get
This isn't a case of someone trying to do some sexual assault on you or something.
Either you don't have a job, or haven't looked at your paycheck lately.
We're trying to balance the books. That's done in two ways, lower expenses and increase revenue.
To continue with the sexual assault analogy, let's say you work the corner of Main and 5th St. One particular patron got his service last week and then ran away. I mean, he promised that he would pay up at the end, but he didn't. And your pimp beat the snot out of you for not getting him his money. Do you trust the John when he comes around the second time, or do you demand to see the money up front?
I don't know what you're referring to. Tax rates are at the lowest rates they've ever been since I've been alive (late 70s).
My healthcare costs have gone up, but that's been going on ever since I started working back in the late 90s.
One of the most prosperous decades in the US was during the 50s, when tax rates on the rich were above 90% and tax rates for others were higher as well. We managed to grow the economy, pay off debt from WWII and carry out another war in Korea all at the same time. I think people tend to forget that fact since it doesn't compute with their current beliefs that higher taxes always causes a worst economy.
It should be noted that in 1951 they responded to this by increasing tax rates. Also, that 35% rate only applies to income earned above $373k, so if you make $500k (after deductions), the 35% rate would only apple to $500-373k of your income ($127k). Your overall tax rate would be much lower than 35% in th
Why doesn't anyone ever compare the tax rate to what it was before one of the biggest wars ever was fought? And the economy was going gangbusters because Europe's manufacturing capability was destroyed. The fact that the Feds were able to tag a little extra drag on that doesn't mean that the drag somehow helped.
Smeagol (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once. No compromise
A friend of mine has a nice analogy about compromise.
"Let me stick my dick in your mouth"
"Come on. Let me."
"You should compromise with me. How about just the tip? Can I stick just the tip of my dick in your mouth?"
The point being that when the opposition wants something unacceptable, its always going to be unacceptable. It doesnt magically become acceptable just because its only the tip of his dick.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, in this case, your analogy fails almost 100%. This isn't a case of someone trying to do some sexual assault on you or something. We're trying to balance the books. That's done in two ways, lower expenses and increase revenue. Revenue has not been keeping pace with expenses due to tax cuts, a large number of baby boomers retiring, and the rapid increase in medical costs. Tack on the enormous recession which caused a further drop in tax receipts and the enormous hole we were already in and you can get
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a case of someone trying to do some sexual assault on you or something.
Either you don't have a job, or haven't looked at your paycheck lately.
We're trying to balance the books. That's done in two ways, lower expenses and increase revenue.
To continue with the sexual assault analogy, let's say you work the corner of Main and 5th St. One particular patron got his service last week and then ran away. I mean, he promised that he would pay up at the end, but he didn't. And your pimp beat the snot out of you for not getting him his money. Do you trust the John when he comes around the second time, or do you demand to see the money up front?
Considering what previous Congress
Re:Smeagol (Score:2)
I don't know what you're referring to. Tax rates are at the lowest rates they've ever been since I've been alive (late 70s).
My healthcare costs have gone up, but that's been going on ever since I started working back in the late 90s.
One of the most prosperous decades in the US was during the 50s, when tax rates on the rich were above 90% and tax rates for others were higher as well. We managed to grow the economy, pay off debt from WWII and carry out another war in Korea all at the same time. I think people tend to forget that fact since it doesn't compute with their current beliefs that higher taxes always causes a worst economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax rates are at the lowest rates they've ever been since I've been alive (late 70s).
We dont need to go on about "lowest ever" when we can state the actual values. The rate is currently 35% for rich people.
One of the most prosperous decades in the US was during the 50s, when tax rates on the rich were above 90%
Federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was at its lowest since 1950.. in the year 1950.
Re: (Score:2)
Federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is about the same now as it was in 1950: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg [wikimedia.org]
It should be noted that in 1951 they responded to this by increasing tax rates. Also, that 35% rate only applies to income earned above $373k, so if you make $500k (after deductions), the 35% rate would only apple to $500-373k of your income ($127k). Your overall tax rate would be much lower than 35% in th
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't anyone ever compare the tax rate to what it was before one of the biggest wars ever was fought? And the economy was going gangbusters because Europe's manufacturing capability was destroyed. The fact that the Feds were able to tag a little extra drag on that doesn't mean that the drag somehow helped.