At the GOP Debate: The Question for 2012

From Ann Althouse, noted in tonight’s debate:

A young guys asks a classic question: “Out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think I deserve to keep?”

That is the question to ask – and especially to ask of Obama and the Democrats.  What amount of liberty, at the end of the day, are you prepared to leave with the people?

No, not whether we’ll have the freedom to watch filth in popular culture.  Not whether we’ll have to freedom to suck up money on welfare of bogus disability.  What real liberty – if I work hard and play by the rules, how much of each dollar do you think I should keep?  99 cents?  75 cents?  50 cents?  What?  You tell us  – and then we’ll know who wants a nation of citizens, and who wants a nation of slaves.

89 thoughts on “At the GOP Debate: The Question for 2012

  1. thomasg0102 September 12, 2011 / 11:15 pm

    That’s such a bs question.

    the answer is simple. You can keep all of it if you don’t want any government. You can choose to live in complete anarchy with no protection from the government if you want to keep all your money.

    On the other hand, if you want to be protected, have roads, schools, decent health access, affordable education and free primary education, then you will pay some taxes. How much? However much the people YOU vote for decide on YOUR behalf.

    It’s that simple.

    Next.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 12, 2011 / 11:29 pm

      No, how much of my money do you think I should be able to keep? Simple question…what is your answer?

      • Al Sibilo September 13, 2011 / 12:05 am

        No, thomasgo0102 had it right. Your question is a loaded one, unless you want to live in a Mad Max kind of world.

        Because you see, in a perfect world, if the government were 100% efficient, you would actually be keeping 100% of your money, because every penny it takes from you in taxes will benefit you to the the value of that one penny.

        Of course, we don’t live in a perfect world, governments aren’t 100% efficient all of the time, and even if they were, Republicans would still be complaining that their neighbour is getting back more of the penny than they are. They forget that a government that doesn’t turn its back on its most vulnerable citizens creates a better society for them all.

        I don’t mind paying taxes. In fact, the more I pay, the more I know I’m earning.

      • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 3:11 am

        tommy and al-shiitebo

        Total unadulterated BS.
        the new dumb and dumber twins,
        how do you spell bankruptcy?
        and at what point do working people quit working because only to give what they earn to the looter and taker drones on the plantation?
        remember the FORMER Soviet Union?
        Cuba?
        etc etc etc???
        kick back on the porch and live the good life off OPM, what ignorant stupid FOOLS!!

      • bardolf September 13, 2011 / 6:29 am

        Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is a huge government project which took money out of my pocket and gave it to the citizens of Nevada in exchange for nothing. Las Vegas property values are still artificially high because the government steals the water which should go to other areas. Obviously Las Vegas wouldn’t even exist without huge projects like the interstate road system or the government built airport to shuttle gamblers to the casinos.

        So Mark, how much of my money are you entitled to so that your property value doesn’t go down further?

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 13, 2011 / 11:03 am

        Al,

        No one is saying we should all keep 100% – we’re just asking how much you think we should keep. What’s the number? How much liberty are the people to have?

      • Cory September 14, 2011 / 3:01 am

        The top marginal tax rate in 1952 was 92% and didn’t drop below 70% until the 1980s. We seemed to do pretty okay and I don’t believe people at that point were convinced that they were being forced into slavery. Given that, if you’re in the top half a percent or so, I don’t see why say 60% marginal taxation on the last part of your income would be a huge deal.

    • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 3:34 am

      tommyturban

      However much the people YOU vote for decide on YOUR behalf.
      It’s that simple.

      The only thing simple is YOU.
      48% of ALL Americans pay NO federal taxes, 99% of those get some sort of “assistance
      even a drone ideologue should see the glaring hypocrisy of this system.

      ——————————————————————————————–
      Update: The chart above is from the Joint Economic Committe (based on 2006 IRS data), showing the percentages of federal personal income tax paid by different groups of taxpayers:
      The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 40% of all income taxes,
      the top 10% pay 71%,
      and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes.
      The bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all income taxes paid.

      ———————————————————————————————-
      The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group that favors tighter immigration laws, argues that the answer is clear: illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion each year.

      Jack Martin, director of special projects for FAIR, says the group is still working on its estimate, but believes undocumented workers leave taxpayers with a fat bill, considering that the government spends money on the workers, and they almost never pay income taxes.

      “The study of the fiscal effects of illegal immigration clearly demonstrates that it is a burden on the American taxpayer,” says Martin. More forceful implementation of immigration laws could save each U.S. household “in the neighborhood of a couple of thousand dollars a year.”

      • js September 13, 2011 / 7:11 am

        that bottom 3 percent…there is no reason any of those people should even file a tax return…there is no reason the government should be taking income taxes out of thier checks…period…

        when they do file taxes….there is also no reason for them to get back a dime more than they put in…

        but the reality…1913…they passed the income tax amendment based on the representation that they will not tax the poor…but they do…

        time to right the ship…and put things back the way they belong

      • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 7:36 am

        national sales tax All pay all pay same rate.
        It works just fine in Fla.

      • js September 13, 2011 / 10:39 am

        you got that right…flat rate tax on all retail sales…in leu of income taxes…hmmm…can u say…tax the poor as well as the rich? that is effectively what that does…

        its hard to say tax the widows food bill…dont think it will fly nation wide…but florida also has this huge tourist tax that helps a lot…

        thanks disney

      • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 5:33 pm

        js

        as in Fla food is exempt except in restaurants.

      • David September 13, 2011 / 10:23 pm

        Regarding this: “48% of ALL Americans pay NO federal taxes”

        Btw, the report said American households, not Americans. You don’t really think children should pay taxes for the government services they receive do you? (you don’t right?)

        Further, you understand that there’s a difference between “Federal Taxes” and “Federal Income Tax,” right? If you’re going to live in our country, I suggest learning our language and maybe thinking a little bit before parroting outrageous “facts.”

        Every worker pays payroll taxes, which are federal taxes. A good number of these workers do not receive enough offsets from their federal income return to cover the costs of these taxes. Thus, your claim is the opposite of the truth, insofar as it is completely and utterly wrong. Congrats.

      • Cory September 14, 2011 / 3:23 am

        You might also note that if you measure government assistance in ratio with paid taxes by state, red states tend to get much more out of their government per dollar than blue states.

        Also, the top 1% of Americans have ~35% of the wealth in this country with the entire bottom 80% only having about 15%. If you substract out home equity, it becomes even more lopsided: the top 1% has closer to 43% and the bottom 80% combine has a whopping 7%. And those gaps continue to widen as time progresses. So if the rich are really that sad about paying taxes into the system in proportion to their wealth, allow me to play the world’s tiniest violin for them.

  2. Green Mountain Boy September 13, 2011 / 7:53 am

    Did anyone watch the debate? Who won, who lost, and who should drop out?

  3. Ryan Murphy September 13, 2011 / 7:53 am

    People who pay no income tax in, should get no benefits out. And don’t mention the Payroll tax because, at least in THEORY, that is supposed to pay for social security benefits. . which fine, they should get. But ANY Other services . . no. Not unless they pay at least SOMETHING in income taxes.

    • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 8:15 am

      they get an earned income tax credit for fed tax and SS.
      If they had say $700.00 deducted they can get $3-4K back.
      NO TAX = NO VOTE

      • js September 13, 2011 / 10:44 am

        hows that work…because you cant get a good education…you cant vote…because without that education…you got no job…

        thats not about fair is it…

        then again…the “earned” income tax credit…would pretty well be eliminated if they only taxed folks who earned 80k or more a year, no? it phases out to 0 with higher incomes beyond 43k…

      • ZEROmega September 13, 2011 / 10:39 pm

        Last tax season, you had to have around $13,000 in taxable income to qualify for the earned income credit. Now, since you are clearly a moron, I’ll spoonfeed you some fucking math.

        $13k a year is $1083.33 a month, which is about $270.83 a week, which would roughly be $6.77 an hour (assuming a forty hour work week). So you would have to make less than minimum fucking wage at a full time job to get the earned income credit.

        Do you have any idea how hard it is for just one person to actually live off of $13k a year? What’s that? You don’t? You have no idea because you’re a spoiled fucking baby who was born to parents financially stable enough to ensure you were supported your entire life and you’ve never had to struggle with poverty? That’s so intereseting.

        Addendum: eat shit and die.

  4. Cluster September 13, 2011 / 8:20 am

    I think Newt, Cain and Santorum did well, I think Bachmann revived her campaign a bit, I think Perry & Romney stumbled a bit, and I think Paul will be out this week.

    I also think that we must go to a flat income tax, starting at 1% for those in the lower income brackets up to 24% for the high income brackets and eliminate all loop holes. Our tax forms should be one page, and institute a fair tax (1% national sales tax). This way, EVERYONE has skin in the game.

    • js September 13, 2011 / 10:45 am

      paul just seems to trip over his tongue….

  5. dbschmidt September 13, 2011 / 8:40 am

    I could go as high as 20% across the board tax with no loopholes for both business and personal. As soon as a tax gets carved out (progressive) based on income–we will end up back where we are now.

  6. watsonredux September 13, 2011 / 11:01 am

    Maybe a better question to ask is, what government functions is Mark willing to pay for? Maybe he could make a list for us. There must be something other than his anticipated social security check and medical care in his old age.

    The military, perhaps? You do believe in national security, don’t you? Maybe you just don’t think you should have to pay for it.

    Should we pay any of the medical expenses of veterans injured in wars, or are they just on their own so you can save a buck? I recently read that there have been 45,338 wounded Americans in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

    How about spy satellites and intelligence gathering? Or perhaps you think we shouldn’t have bothered hunting down bin Ladin because it cost you some money.

    Roads? Bridges? Do you ever use any of those?

    Dams? Don’t you live in the middle of the desert, Mark? This stuff that brings you water might be kind of important to you.

    How about border security? Or do you believe, like Ron Paul, that securing the border is just a clever way of keeping us in?

    Should we pay interest on the national debt or just default?

    How about police and fire departments? Or should we just privatize the maintenance of civil order?

    National Parks? Or sell off the Grand Canyon to the highest bidder?

    Public education? Or should we just let poor people go without? That’ll really help us compete in the world.

    The Coast Guard? The National Guard?

    Do you think we should have food inspectors? Or should the free market decide? You know, if enough people die from a certain ranch’s meat, we’ll figure out to avoid it.

    What about the guys who ensure that when the pump says it pumped a gallon of gas into your tank, or really pumped a gallon of gas.

    Cancer research?

    Prisons? Courts?

    Anything?

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 13, 2011 / 11:08 am

      Watson,

      A fair question – and after I answer it, will you, then, answer the question of how much money you think each individual American should be allowed to keep?

      My view is that government should do what is can efficiently do – defend the nation, enforce the laws and provide emergency resources in a crisis. When you go beyond these proper functions of governments you merely build up self-perpetuating bureaucracies and crony capitalism.

      • watsonredux September 13, 2011 / 11:17 am

        Mark, that’s a poor way to frame the question. Here’s the problem I have with a lot of Tea Party folks: They don’t want to pay taxes, and yet they want the benefits. We saw that during the health care debate when they prevailed on their congressmen to keep government out of health care.

        How about, what services do we want the government to provide, and how much are we willing to pay for them? I believe most people do want all of the services I described above and more. But being human, they want to avoid paying for it. It doesn’t work that way, despite today’s conservatives pretending that it does.

      • Cluster September 13, 2011 / 11:40 am

        Here’s the problem I have with a lot of Tea Party folks: They don’t want to pay taxes, and yet they want the benefits. – watson

        More brain damage from the left. This statement watson isn’t even close to the truth, and the fact is that most tea partiers pay more in taxes than most do because most of us are gainfully employed and/or own small business’s. If you can’t at least speak honestly, please don’t speak, ok?

      • Cluster September 13, 2011 / 11:43 am

        And the only people without skin in the game is the people like you, people on the left, people who vote democratic based on the pandering and promises that left wing candidates throw out there. The 47% of people in this country that don’t pay income taxes, vote democrat. I would think that you might have a problem with that considering that they definitely don’t want to pay taxes but certainly expect the benefits. And those are your people watson, not ours.

      • bardolf September 13, 2011 / 11:48 am

        What about regulating the medical practice or education system? Should the government be “enforcing” laws that keep marijuana illegal? How far does “defending the nation go” in e.g. defending private individuals or businesses in a foreign country? Does defending the country include ‘defending the economy’? Would building a dam in Las Vegas count as ‘defending the country’?

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 13, 2011 / 12:04 pm

        Watson,

        The services you apparently want cost about $3.5 trillion per year…the services I want would cost about $2.0 trillion. I think that each American should keep 75% of his gross income – federal, State and local taxation (direct and indirect) should take no more than 25%.

      • Sunny September 13, 2011 / 12:11 pm

        Cluster, watson’s statement is exactly on point. You just do not want to admit to the truth of his statement. What are you willing to give up to not have to pay taxes? Public safety (fire and poice forces), safe bridges and highways, aerospace safety, safe drugs, safe food? Exactly what should the government not do? Most all conservatives are gung ho military until it comes time to take care of those who have served and are in need of medical care and treatment. Should we as a country stop providing medical treatment for our soldiers?

        When the questions are hard you avoid a resonsible answer by making immature responses such as “more brain damage from the left” and unprovable responses that most Tea Party members pay more taxes than liberals. Many of the Tea Party members are the likes of Spook and neo who are already drawing SS and MediCare. Ask them if they are willing to sacrifice these socialist benifits so many on the right consider “middle class welfare”? So many of the Tea Party members are senior citizens who will never give up their “socialist welfare checks”.

        You don’t like the truth. Instead of being honest and admitting that the government does play an important part in the lives of every American you only want to deamonize those benefits. I know Ronald Reagan was the idol of the conservatives, but he did the right a huge disservice by stating that the “government was the problem” – all the while producting a $200+ billion deficit.

        Conservatives need to grow up and realize that there are times in our history we must be willing to sacrifice (remember WWII when our parents and grandparents sacrificed greatly) instead of having a President that tells us to go shopping after a catostrophic event. What an ideal time to ask all of us to made sacrifices and be willing to pay for the wars in which we were fighting. Now our children and grandchildren will get to pay. Never in the history of the US have we ever not paid for a war while involved and at the same time lowered taxes. What an insane thing to do. The years from 2001 have been the most insane and unAmerican years in the history of our nation – Americans have become frightenes children, lazy and unwilling to make any sacrifices for this country. And the Tea Party members are the greatest example of what it means to be selfish, me first, with the attitude that taxes are evil and should never be raised under any circumstances – even if it means the country goes over the cliff. Thank you Tea Party members.

      • watsonredux September 13, 2011 / 12:14 pm

        Cluster said, “And the only people without skin in the game is the people like you, people on the left, people who vote democratic based on the pandering and promises that left wing candidates throw out there. The 47% of people in this country that don’t pay income taxes, vote democrat. I would think that you might have a problem with that considering that they definitely don’t want to pay taxes but certainly expect the benefits. And those are your people watson, not ours.”

        Wow, Cluster, you figured out exactly who I am from a couple of paragraphs I wrote to Mark? You must have some mad skills, there, Cluster. What a tool.

        I stand by my statement, and I’ll expand it, to say that most people–Tea Partiers included–want the benefits but don’t want to pay for them.

      • watsonredux September 13, 2011 / 12:18 pm

        Mark said, “The services you apparently want cost about $3.5 trillion per year…the services I want would cost about $2.0 trillion. I think that each American should keep 75% of his gross income – federal, State and local taxation (direct and indirect) should take no more than 25%.”

        Please back it up with the data with which you arrived at these figures. And since there is apparently a large discrepancy between what you and I are willing to pay for, please tell me which things I am willing to pay for that you are not.

      • Bodie September 13, 2011 / 3:23 pm

        “Ask them if they are willing to sacrifice these socialist benifits so many on the right consider “middle class welfare”? ”

        Every time they are asked this question, the response is, “I paid in, so I should get the benefits!” It’s all those other people who paid in who shouldn’t. This is how the “keep your government hands off my government benefits” attitude becomes so widespread: They believe their own mythology to the point where they are either too ignorant or too dishonest to understand how much they benefit from the programs they insist must be slashed.

      • watsonredux September 13, 2011 / 3:57 pm

        Bodie said, Every time they are asked this question, the response is, “I paid in, so I should get the benefits!”

        Exactly. We see it right here on this blog. Just the other day, NeoClown, as a Social Security recipient, got very indignant by the idea that he was taking advantage social benefits. His response? He’s just getting what he paid for. Mark said exactly the same thing to defend the fact that he expects to collect SS. Any benefits they receive, including SS and Medicare, are right and proper. Any benefits someone else receives are bad.

        Let’s just cut to the chase: This is all about the fear and resentment that someone else is going to get a free ride off of their money. It seems to consume them.

      • Cluster September 13, 2011 / 4:32 pm

        They believe their own mythology to the point where they are either too ignorant or too dishonest to understand how much they benefit from the programs they insist must be slashed. – bodie

        The word is reformed, not slashed, but that doesn’t work for your narrative, right? But speaking of slashing, didn’t Obamacare call for gutting medicare by $500 billion?

      • Bodie September 13, 2011 / 5:14 pm

        “The word is reformed, not slashed”

        You think hiding behind a facile euphemism makes it better, cluster?

  7. watsonredux September 13, 2011 / 11:06 am

    Regarding the debate itself, last week the biggest cheers came from the mere mention of executing 234 individuals in the state of Texas. This week, the cheers were for standing by and letting the uninsured die. Yes!, came the cries of the audience.

    I understand that there are different political points of view regarding the death penalty and health care. But since when did conservatives start taking such glee in the deaths of fellow Americans? Talk about a culture of death.

  8. Sunny September 13, 2011 / 11:41 am

    Speaking of last nights Tea Party GOP debate, is this what conservatives really support and believe?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/tea-party-debate-health-care_n_959354.html

    Was it not just a little more than a year ago that one of conservatives’ favorite catch phrases/talking points was “death panels”? Can anyone here provide a serious answer to the contridiction of the two different attitudes? What is it the Tea Party really believes?

    • Cluster September 13, 2011 / 12:04 pm

      That question re: the 30 yr old completely misses the point, but that is typical of liberals. The fact is that before medicaid and Obamacare, many people found themselves in this situation yet they received the care they need, so the question is the expense of that care, which is inflated by layers of government, insurance, regulations and administration, so let’s speak about the real issue, not the drama queen stuff, ok?

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 13, 2011 / 12:06 pm

      Sunny,

      You’re massively missing the point – failure to provide one’s self with health insurance is massively different from a remote, government panel deciding you must die because the government would rather spend money on fat, union contracts than the health care the taxes are ostensibly collected for.

      At all events, the question and Paul’s answers were both absurd…Christians don’t allow people to just die; if you lack health insurance and money to pay for care, just contact Catholic Charities or any of a thousand Christian organizations and the means will be found.

      • Sunny September 13, 2011 / 2:27 pm

        Sorry Mark, I didn’t massively miss the point. You did. As usual. First, we all know there will be no death panels – a Palin talking point the right wingers jumped on. And for the Tea Party group to cheer at a GOP debate to let the 30 year old man die b/c he would not shell out for health insurance is just plain sick. These are the people you defend daily and believe they have the correct principles and ideals. As you said ‘ if you lack health insurance and money to pay for care, just contact your locat Catholic Charities . . . is the Catholic Church and other churches going to be responsible for paying for health care for those who don’t want to be responsible for their own insurance? Good to know.

      • dennis September 13, 2011 / 3:07 pm

        “If you lack health insurance and money to pay for care, just contact Catholic Charities or any of a thousand Christian organizations and the means will be found.”

        Oh, that’s rich. These organizations have so much money these days – evidently conservative Christians are just standing in line to give to charity to help the poor and needy. Judging from the rhetoric here, more likely it’s liberal Christians, but who really knows? In any case, charitable contributions must be way up now for you to be so confident about this.

        And incidentally your linkage “a remote, government panel deciding you must die because the government would rather spend money on fat, union contracts than health care” is equally absurd. You have a real disconnect from reality, Mark.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 13, 2011 / 6:29 pm

        Sunny,

        The point being made is that no one is just going to allow someone to die…unless, of course, it is liberals who are happy to see someone die of thirst and hunger if they can thereby re-affirm their allegiance to the Culture of Death.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 13, 2011 / 6:34 pm

        Dennis,

        But that is how it works in places like Canada and Britain – when it comes time to decide between more facilities for the ill and more money for the government unions, it is the unions who get paid…this is why in socialized medicine countries you can wait months for tests and treatments. It is just in the nature of things – the system administrators hardly ever see a patient, but they do see the union representatives at contract time…and as the elected officials don’t want strikes, the money goes to whomever is right in the administrator’s face. That isn’t granny who needs an MRI. That is what a “death panel” really is…and it is a stark reality of all socialized medicine schemes.

        But, also, you know that we Christians will be there for the ill – you and I both. We’re not just going to allow someone to die. This is why I’d rather we just block-granted health care money out to charitable medical organizations and allow them to work out programs for insuring the poor and providing basic care regardless of ability to pay. But that would take power out of the hands of government; it would allow for no fat, union contracts…all it would do is provide health care for people who can’t pay.

        Trust me on this, though – as long as there are people like the brothers of Missionaries of the Poor, there will be health care for the poor.

      • Bodie September 13, 2011 / 7:38 pm

        “unless, of course, it is liberals who are happy to see someone die of thirst and hunger if they can thereby re-affirm their allegiance to the Culture of Death.”

        What the hell is this even supposed to mean?

    • watsonredux September 13, 2011 / 12:15 pm

      Yes, Sunny, today’s conservatives take outright glee in seeing someone else die. It’s all sport to them, apparently.

    • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 4:33 pm

      The FLYING MONKEYS have ARRIVED

  9. Ryan Murphy September 13, 2011 / 11:51 am

    No, and you know it isn’t. Ron Paul is a loon, but his answer here was exactly right.

    Its PRIVATE CHARITIES and individuals jobs to care for the indigent, not the federal government.

  10. dbschmidt September 13, 2011 / 12:36 pm

    Well now–according to Watson & Sunny the streets were lined with dead folks and those dying prior to Social Security Act of 1965. I don’t remember seeing them as I walked to school or when we went to a doctor and paid the doctor for his services directly. Since then, everyone who works has been forced into this wonderful system without a choice of opting out. Two years ago–my notice (even though I was 49 at the time) informed me that the best I can hope for is getting back 75 cents on the dollar that was taken from me and that could change at the whim of Congress.

    Sure, maybe my memory is failing nowadays…there were them carts early in the morning going around “Bring out your dead…bring out you dead”

    • Cluster September 13, 2011 / 12:51 pm

      One of my favorite Monty Python scenes – “but I’m not dead yet”

    • Sunny September 13, 2011 / 2:22 pm

      well dbschmidt, maybe you need to do a little more research before writing something like “those dead folks dying prior the SS Act of 1965”

      Q1: When did Social Security start?

      A: The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.

      Not sure where you came up with people dying in the streets – except just another right wing talking point.

      • dbschmidt September 13, 2011 / 9:44 pm

        Is it I or should you actual have some idea of what you are speaking about?

        The Social Security Amendments of 1965 was legislation in the United States whose most important provisions resulted in creation of two programs: Medicare and Medicaid. The legislation initially provided federal health insurance for the elderly (over 65) and for poor families.

    • watsonredux September 13, 2011 / 3:51 pm

      You missed my point, dbschmidt. First, I said nothing about dead folks lining the streets; you just made that up out of thin air.

      To make the point yet again: Rregardless of how you feel politically, it is a tragedy when a 20 or 30-year old dies due to lack of treatment. To take glee in his or her death is just plain repugnant. Yet, apparently some of you folks do just that. So much for the culture of life.

      • Cluster September 13, 2011 / 4:29 pm

        It’s a choice watson. You are pro choice, right?

  11. Cluster September 13, 2011 / 1:06 pm

    Isn’t it strange how watson and sunny accuse the tea party members of wanting the benefits that they actually paid taxes for, all the while falsely accusing them of not wanting to pay taxes while completely ignoring the fact 47% of the people who don’t pay income taxes, also want those benefits, and definitely don’t pay the taxes for them. Why don’t sunny and watson have a problem with them?

    I also don’t know how sunny and watson can vote for Obama considering that his foreign policies are opposed to everything they use to stand for. Obama has kept Gitmo open, has accelerated the war in Afghanistan, has opened a new war front in Libya, will proceed with military tribunals, has used drones to kill civilians and has strengthened the Patriot Act. Sunny and watson sure have questionable principles if they can vote for that kind of president.

    • Sunny September 13, 2011 / 1:57 pm

      Cluster, are you saying that the 47% of people you refer to have never been employed and never had social security taxes taken from their pay checks? Can you provide proof that these 47% never paid into the system? And further, are you saying that if a person or their spouse never paid into the system they will be entitled to receive Social Security?

      I can and will again vote for Obama – in spite of the barriers put into place by the GOP. But for the GOP and conservatives blocking the closing of Gitmo, it would have been closed. Same is true of the war in Afghanistan – with pressure from the right to send in more troops Obama gave in to the right. As to Libya – I believe he did the right thing in supporting those opposed to Gaddafi – without losing one American life.

      I would guess that you didn’t support every action by Bush but voted for him twice. One has to be realistic that a President is not going to get everything promised while campaigning. It is not a dictatorship – the Prisident has two other branches of government to deal with – to say nothing of the opposing party and one as obstructing as the Republicans. When it is declared by the leader of that party that the number one goal of the party is to make sure the President is a one term President – you know it is going to be a rough road ahead. The Republican’s did not say that their first priority was to make sure they did what was in the best interest of people of the US. Tells one a lot about who they are dealing with.

      • Cluster September 13, 2011 / 4:28 pm

        One has to be realistic that a President is not going to get everything promised while campaigning – sunny

        How about the promises he made after winning the election? How about the 2009 stimulus that he “promised” would keep unemployment at or under 8%, or that Obamacare would bring down the cost of health care, or that Gitmo detainees would be tried in civilian courts. Anything?

    • watsonredux September 13, 2011 / 7:27 pm

      It’s amazing how much your project, cluster. Do you often make sweeping judgements with so little information? Or do you restrict your childish behavior just for this blog?

  12. Ryan Murphy September 13, 2011 / 1:25 pm

    Heck, I already saw a news story tryign to talk about “What will uninsured people ever DO? . . if Obamacare is repealed. When it isn’t even in effect NOW. . .

    Just like “How coudl the country survive without the FAA?” – which didn’t exist before. .what. . 1979? Or “How can people EVER get educated without the Education department. . which didn’t exist before. . .

    and so on.

    • Sunny September 13, 2011 / 1:59 pm

      Seriously, you want to eleminate the FAA? Really. You are truly and idiot Ryan.

      • Ryan Murphy September 13, 2011 / 2:54 pm

        YOu didn’t even read the post. I didn’t even say they SHOULD be eliminated. . .only that saying. . . “How could ANYTHING ever work without department X” is a dumb line. Things DID work without department X> THe world existed and planes didn’t crash into eachother on a weekly basis. . did they? m People got taught. Etcetera.

        YOu can argue the merits of a department, but claiming that it would be disaster if it didn’t exist is facetious.

      • Ryan Murphy September 13, 2011 / 2:56 pm

        And SUnny. . . . that reply didn’t address the issue other than saying. . .Well. . yeah? YOU’RE A DUMMY!!!!!”

        Did we have airplanes flying on a regular basis before 1979?

      • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 4:37 pm

        scummy

        more lack of reading comprehension.
        you would best only look stupid than open your mouth and PROVE it.
        you would be better served by STFU

    • watsonredux September 13, 2011 / 4:03 pm

      Uh, no Ryan, the FAA was created in 1958. You know, when Eisenhower was the president. Aside from grossly misrepresenting the FAA, you might want to consider that there are a lot more airplanes flying around now than there were 60, 80, 100 years ago. Maybe air transportation grew to the point that it needed some support and services? You know, air control towers and things like that. Of do you think it should just be a free for all and we’ll all just learn to avoid airplanes that crash and airlines that fail to maintain their equipment, causing their planes to crash?

  13. Cluster September 13, 2011 / 1:27 pm

    Yes, Sunny, today’s conservatives take outright glee in seeing someone else die. – watson

    And this is the level of intellect that we must confront on the left. Strange though considering that liberals call the death of millions of babies as a “choice”

    • Sunny September 13, 2011 / 2:02 pm

      Go look in the mirror Cluster. You and your ilk look dumber and more ridiclious every day. The average American does not think like you – and your group of potential presidential candidates make most wonder what has happened to the GOP. Does make for good material for late night comedy shows though. That is what the GOP is coming to – the comedy political party. The further from reality the candidate the more the Tea Party loves them.

  14. dennis September 13, 2011 / 3:50 pm

    Out of every dollar earned how much does one deserve to keep? The answer depends on how many dollars one makes.

    Progressive tax allows everyone’s basic needs to be met, for those who make the most money to still enjoy the highest standard of living without compromising the very survival of the poorest.

    The very rich as a rule work no harder than hourly workers, many of whom are at the bottom of the income scale. I’m confident of that because I’ve worked in both worlds and seen it proven over and over. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but extreme wealth most often is conferred by some unearned advantage (typically of birth and inheritance) which provides leverage those born poor do not enjoy. On top of that, the very wealthy gain the largest advantages from Republican economic policies which generally prevail today, despite a Democratic administration.

    That’s why a certain amount of government intervention is proper both economically and morally, to see that not only infrastructure and national defense but the basic needs of all are assured. Limited redistribution of wealth to those who didn’t earn it did not originate with evil liberals. It was mandated by Yahweh in the Old Testament, to see that the needs of foreigners, the fatherless, and widows were met (see Deuteronomy 24:19-22). That’s a fundamental part of your vaunted Judeo-Christian tradition, which you so selectively cherry-pick for the defense of your values.

    Don’t forget the sin of Sodom: “She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy” Ezekiel 16:49.

    • Cluster September 13, 2011 / 4:13 pm

      Dennis,

      You continue to display a high level of ignorance of conservatives despite the fact that we have tried to educate you time and time again. Conservatives do want to pay taxes, do want a functioning government, & do want to have safety nets for those in need. We just have very different ideas on how to achieve those goals, so please stop with the lectures. Last week during his “jobs bill” speech, Obama stated that he rejects the notion that our children be exposed to mercury – which is laughable. I don’t know of anyone who does support that notion, but Obama threw it out there hoping to come off as the “caring” one, and that is what you do everyday.

      • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 4:40 pm

        cluster

        Dennis,

        You continue to display a high level of ignorance

        you could have stopped right there… 🙂

      • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 4:45 pm

        Paul is toast, as is newt.
        Romney proved he is to the left of McLame which is why he LOST last time.
        Bachman looked ridiculous and uninformed attacking Perry over freaking shots,
        How many are REQUIRED for a kindergartner before they can even set foot in a school 5-6 minimum and eye drops for syphilis at the moment of birth.
        Cain….muslimed out, GONE circling the bowl.

      • dennis September 13, 2011 / 4:55 pm

        Cluster, you’re mistaken. I’m 60 years of age and have known quite a few right-wing conservatives, personally and over many years of time. Some have been in my own family. I’ve have had plenty of time to hear and observe exactly how they think and prioritize.

      • Sunny September 13, 2011 / 5:00 pm

        Cluster, if what you say is true, then conservatives are their own worst enemy. The image most conservaties put forth is that the rich should not be taxed (what is the new conservative talking point? “class warfare”?), that the poor are poor because they are lazy, that it is each man for himself, and the government is evil, evil, evil. That all poor and the supposedly 47% who do not pay taxes are liberals, that liberals are evil and do not have a religious foundation, that the liberals only want to take from the rich and be lazy human beings that contribute nothing of value to this country. If you have tried to educate those of us you consider liberals, you have done an extremely poor job of it. What you do most of the time is just call everyone names who does not agree with you and fail to respond with somewhat intelligent comments.

      • Cluster September 13, 2011 / 5:27 pm

        The image most conservaties put forth is that the rich should not be taxed – sunny

        You need to stop with the “images”, and start dealing with facts. I think the rich should be taxed, even more so than other income levels, but 35% seems enough for me. The rest of your post is just misguided emotion, of which I have little use for.

      • Cluster September 13, 2011 / 5:30 pm

        I’m 60 years of age and have known quite a few right-wing conservatives, personally and over many years of time. Some have been in my own family. I’ve have had plenty of time to hear and observe exactly how they think and prioritize. – dennis

        And those few people now represent all conservatives? What is that liberals lecture us all the time about Muslims? That we shouldn’t use the actions of a few to tarnish the entire population? You may want to take that advice.

      • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 5:43 pm

        dinddongdenny

        nd have known quite a few right-wing conservatives,

        so you are a left-wing socialist….. mmk

    • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 4:50 pm

      dennistooge

      the old testament was fulfilled the old has passed and in with the new.
      NOWHERE did CHRIST call for the state to help the poor, Christians were told to do that.
      Christ drove the tax collectors out of the synagog with a whip.
      dennistooge the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

      • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 4:51 pm

        but since you like the OT so much

        Psalm 109:8 SOON!!

      • dennis September 13, 2011 / 5:02 pm

        Neo, youre mixed up. Jesus drove the money changers and merchandisers out of the temple. He went home and had dinner with a tax collecter, Zacchaeus. Read Luke 19:1-9 to see how that played out.

    • Ryan Murphy September 13, 2011 / 4:54 pm

      You seem to measure work by sweat rather than VALUE PRODUCED.

      • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 5:39 pm

        ryan

        a measure of liberal stupidity.

      • neocon1 September 13, 2011 / 5:41 pm

        dennistooge

        I am well aware of the NT, and it never called for the murder of babies, sodomy, theft through taxes, sloth, envy, theft of OPM.
        do try to keep up wolf.

      • Cory September 14, 2011 / 2:56 am

        The current economic landscape also does not measure work by anything remotely approaching “value produced.” There are piles of affluent individuals that make their entire living by moving other people’s money around and not producing anything at all, and CEOs get paid huge bonuses while their businesses are failing. Right now, pay scales are determined primarily by factors like knowing the right people and having the right parents, and this is becoming more and more true as income distribution gaps explode and income quintile mobility plummets. Compared to that, I would love the idea of work measured by sweat.

  15. watsonredux September 13, 2011 / 8:49 pm

    So Mark says he’s willing to spend 25% of his income on taxes, cluster says 35%. According to the Tax Foundation, this is what people actually pay in taxes, ranked according to income, as of 2004:

    Bottom 20% of earners: 13% paid in taxes.
    Second 20% of earners: 23.2% paid in taxes.
    Third 20% of earners: 28.2% paid in taxes.
    Fourth 20% of earners: 31.3% paid in taxes.
    Top 20% of earners: 34.5% paid in taxes.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 13, 2011 / 8:58 pm

      Watson,

      But the total tax burden on someone like me approaches 45%…and I’m in a low-tax State. The bottom line is that we’re taxed more than serfs were in the Middle Ages. I figure taking 1/4th of my income is sufficient.

      • watsonredux September 14, 2011 / 11:17 pm

        Then you need an accountant. The percentages I gave you above are the total percent of income that goes to pay ALL taxes, for each income group, per the Tax Foundation. Look it up.

  16. Al Sibilo September 13, 2011 / 11:56 pm

    Mark, nice friend you got there in neocon1. I wonder if he knows how to make a point without denigrating others or name calling. I’m willing to bet no.

  17. dennis September 14, 2011 / 12:26 am

    Cluster, not lecturing, just answering Mark’s dumb question as best as it could be answered. His simplistic formulation seemed designed to elicit a dumb answer, as Thomas picked up at the very top.

    And I said I know quite a few conservatives, not just a few. I know their core beliefs, their political values, their economic doctrines and social predilections. I know them generally and specifically, in the abstract and in the particular. I’ve been around them all my life and that’s getting to be a long time now. I don’t need you to explain to me what conservatives are.

    I have differences of opinion with conservatives but pretty good friendships with some of them. And most of those I know are nicer people than the folks on this blog – at least a heck of a lot nicer than the personalities on display here. I’d like to believe conservatives are generally good people but according to you, maybe the ones I know aren’t the rule, and you are. If that’s the case I’ll pass on getting to know any more conservatives.

    Neo, you say you’re aware of the NT. Problem is, you seem to use the Bible mainly as a resource for curses and maledictions on your political enemies. What Christians are supposed to do with the Bible is learn principles for living from it. You’re the only one talking about murder, sodomy, sloth, envy and theft here. What’s up with that?

    • Bodie September 14, 2011 / 2:03 pm

      “Neo, you say you’re aware of the NT.”

      Well, he is–he’s aware that there’s this thing called “the New Testament” that exists. But that’s the extent of it. Does he comprehend it? Follow it? Obviously not.

      Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy.
      Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.

Comments are closed.